Subdivision and by 0YxjB6I8

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 19

									                     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: April 15, 2010
                                                           APPLICATION NO: 93737946-003
                                                           FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-078

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated March 4, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage – 9.14 metres by 7.32 metres) and to
demolish an existing Accessory Building (Detached Garage – 6.18 metres by 3.74 metres)

on Lot 2, Block 13D, Plan 3159HW, located at 11308 – 113 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on March 31, 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 of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct an Accessory Building (Detached
                     Garage – 9.14 metres by 7.32 metres) and to demolish an existing
                     Accessory Building (Detached Garage – 6.18 metres by 3.74 metres),
                     located at 11308 – 113 Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single
                     Detached Residential Zone. The proposed development was refused
                     because vehicular access from the front or flanking public roadway is not
                     allowed where an abutting Lane exists, the access location and curb
                     crossing has not been approved by the Transportation Department and
                     parking is not allowed within the required Front Yard.
SDAB-D-10-078                         2                             April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                The Board notes that the Appellant submitted a petition containing 11
                signatures of support from 10 affected properties located in close
                proximity to the subject site, a copy of which is on file.

                Mr. Bergeron provided the following information in support of his appeal:

                1.     The lot immediately north of his property has been graded to allow
                       drainage from the back to the front of the lot and there is a 16 inch
                       drop from this lot to his lot.
                2.     The lot to the south has been graded to allow drainage to both the
                       front and the rear of the lot.
                3.     He is in the process of constructing a retaining wall on all four
                       sides of his lot to deal with the total grading differences of
                       approximately 29 inches and the resulting drainage issues.
                4.     The development permit for a detached garage was approved on
                       January 6, 2010. However, the permit was subsequently cancelled
                       after a review by the Transportation department.
                5.     The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay does not permit access from
                       the front roadway of a property where a rear lane exists.
                6.     He would like to provide access to the garage from the front of his
                       property because crime is a concern in this neighbourhood. His
                       vehicles have been broken into 11 times over the past 4 years.
                7.     His job takes him out of the City a lot and he would like to have
                       his vehicles stored securely when he is not at home.
                8.     On-street parking is limited in this area because of the close
                       proximity to NAIT and many of the students park on the
                       neighbouring streets.
                9.     The existing front driveway has existed for four years and is not
                       hardsurfaced.
                10.    The new garage, with a 9 foot overhead door installed, will be
                       large enough to accommodate his heavy duty truck and trailer with
                       ample room for two other vehicles within the rear of the property.
                       He owns a recreational vehicle which is stored off-site during the
                       winter months.
                11.    Three of the five neighbouring properties that front 113 Street, not
                       including his property, currently have driveways with street access.
                12.    The retaining wall along the south side of his lot will be completed
                       in the spring. The north, west and east sides of the retaining wall
                       have been installed.
                13.    The retaining wall at the rear of his property and the garage pad
                       which is approximately 22 inches above the grade of the lane does
                       not allow access to his garage from the rear lane.
SDAB-D-10-078                         3                              April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                14.    He discussed his development with neighbouring property owners
                       and submitted a petition of support. It was clarified that one of the
                       addresses included on the petition should read 113A Avenue
                       instead of 113A Street.
                15.    He advised the Board that his neighbour immediately to the south
                       was initially upset because he thought that he had not applied for a
                       development permit to build his garage. However, after being
                       advised that a development permit was initially approved for the
                       garage, his neighbour agreed to sign the petition of support.
                16.    It was reiterated that it is difficult to manoeuvre his large truck in
                       the rear lane and the existing retaining wall makes it difficult to
                       access the garage from the rear lane.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the requirement that no vehicular access be provided from the Front Yard
                where an abutting Lane exists and where the Site Width is less than 15.5
                metres be waived, subject to the following conditions:

                1.     all access locations and curb crossing shall require the approval of
                       the Transportation and Streets Department;
                2.     there shall be no parking in the required Front Yard;
                3.     eaves, including eavestroughing may project a maximum of 0.46
                       metres (1.5 feet) into required yards or separation spaces of less
                       than 1.2 metres (four feet);
                4.     eavestroughing shall be installed and drainage must take place
                       entirely on subject property;
                5.     height of the garage shall not exceed 4.3 metres nor one storey;
                6.     exterior finish of the garage shall be made compatible with that of
                       the existing principal dwelling;
                7.     the Applicant shall install a remote control garage door opener;
                8.     the access to the garage shall be hardsurfaced. Hardsurfacing shall
                       mean the provision of a durable, dust-free material constructed of
                       concrete, asphalt or similar pavement capable of withstanding
                       expected vehicle loads.
SDAB-D-10-078                          4                             April 15, 2010


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development is accessory to a Permitted Use in the
                        RF1 Zone.
                2.      Based on the evidence provided, three of the five residences
                        located on this block have legal non-conforming front access to a
                        Detached Garage. The Board therefore finds that front drive access
                        is characteristic of this area.
                3.      Because the majority of the residences on this block access
                        existing Detached Garages from the front public roadway, the
                        proposed development will be in keeping with the general purpose
                        of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay which is to ensure that new
                        low density development in Edmonton’s mature residential
                        neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development,
                        maintains the traditional character and pedestrian-friendly design
                        of the streetscape, ensures privacy and sunlight penetration on
                        adjacent properties and provides opportunity for discussion
                        between applicants and neighbouring affected parties when a
                        development proposes to vary the Overlay regulations.
                4.      Based on the evidence provided, the proposed development is
                        characteristic of the neighbourhood.
                5.      The grading of the lots on either side of the subject property and
                        the resulting drainage issues have created a hardship and practical
                        difficulty for the Appellant to access his Detached Garage from the
                        rear lane. The drainage issues have also made it necessary for the
                        Appellant to construct a retaining wall on his property.
                6.      No letters of objection were received and no one appeared in
                        opposition to the proposed development.
                7.      A petition of support containing 11 signatures representing 10
                        affected properties located in close proximity to the subject site
                        was submitted by the Appellant.
                6.      Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
                        interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially
                        interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                        parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-10-078                                   5                              April 15, 2010

               IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

     The following information may not pertain to your specific situation. Should you have any
               questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (780) 496-6079

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.        If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
          for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
          R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, 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.

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



                                                        Ms. S. Kwan, 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: April 15, 2010
                                                            APPLICATION NO: 94543483-001
                                                            FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-079

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated March 5, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an addition to a Garage (connecting the house to the garage – 0.61 metres by 6.79
metres), exterior stairs to the second floor of the house, and a rear uncovered deck (3.45 metres
by 2.52 metres at 0.91 metres high), existing without permits

on Lot 13, Block 2, Plan RN37A, located at 10426 – 91 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on March 31, 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 of the decision of the Development Authority
                      to refuse an application to construct an addition to a Garage (connecting
                      the house to the garage – 0.61 metres by 6.79 metres), exterior stairs to the
                      second floor of the house, and a rear uncovered deck (3.45 metres by 2.52
                      metres at 0.91 metres high), existing without permits, located at 10426 –
                      91 Street NW. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone.
                      The proposed development was refused because the existing Single
                      Detached House is non-conforming due to a deficiency in the minimum
                      required Rear Yard, a deficiency in the minimum required Front Yard and
                      a deficiency in the minimum required Side Yard.
SDAB-D-10-079                        2                             April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                The Board heard from Harvey Linke, representing the Appellant, his
                father, Mr. Otto Linke who acquired the property in 1954. Mr. Harvey
                Linke made the following points in support of the appeal:

                1.    A permit was obtained to construct a detached garage. However,
                      during the construction process it was decided to connect the
                      existing basement entrance directly to the garage which would
                      provide access to the garage without going outdoors.
                2.    The space between the existing basement door and the wall of the
                      garage is approximately 2½ feet and that was the length of the
                      connection.
                3.    During a subsequent inspection by the Building Inspector and the
                      Fire Department, it was noted by the Development Officer that the
                      addition connecting the house to the garage was not part of the
                      approved permit and therefore a new permit was required.
                4.    An application for a development permit was subsequently made
                      but was refused by the Planning and Development Department.
                5.    It was noted that there were no safety or fire concerns raised during
                      the site inspection.
                6.    Although this heritage house was built in 1907, it is not currently
                      included on the list of heritage properties in Edmonton because of
                      a number of renovations to the house, including new windows, that
                      do not conform to the standards at the time of the original
                      construction.
                7.    The connection between the house and the garage does not in any
                      way impact the neighbours because it is not visible from the street.
                8.    Two neighbours to the west, one neighbour to the south and a
                      member of the Community League executive were contacted
                      regarding the proposed addition. The Community League did not
                      have a concern regarding the proposed development as long as the
                      neighbouring property owners were satisfied.
                9.    The proposed development met with enthusiastic support from the
                      neighbours, particularly because of the proposed new fence and
                      new deck and the replacement of other features of the house which
                      were in need of repair.
                10.   Even with the proposed addition the site coverage complies with
                      the maximum 40 percent allowed in the RA7 Zone.
                11.   The garage and the proposed addition to the house are the only
                      new features. The deck and the stairs existed previously, and are
                      simply being repaired and upgraded with new material.
SDAB-D-10-079                                 3                             April 15, 2010

DECISION:

                        that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                        the deficiency of 3.31 metres in the minimum required Front Yard, the
                        deficiency of 0.36 metres in the minimum required north Side Yard, the
                        deficiency of 0.01 metres in the minimum required south Side Yard and
                        the deficiency of 6.20 metres in the minimum required Rear Yard be
                        permitted

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                        The Board finds the following:

                        1.     The proposed development is an addition to a Discretionary Use in
                               the RA7 Zone.
                        2.     The existing building is a legal non-conforming structure and the
                               proposed addition does not increase the non-conformity.
                        3.     Even with the proposed addition, the total site coverage does not
                               exceed the maximum 40 percent allowed in the RA7 Zone.
                        4.     The proposed development has the support of neighbouring
                               property owners and the Community League and no one appeared
                               in opposition to the proposed development.
                        5.     The Board notes that the refusal of the Development Officer was
                               based partly on the requirements of the Mature Neighbourhood
                               Overlay. However, the subject site is located in an RA7 Low Rise
                               Apartment Zone which does not fall within the Mature
                               Neighbourhood Overlay.
                        6.     Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
                               interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially
                               interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                               parcels of land.”

                        IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

     The following information may not pertain to your specific situation. Should you have any
               questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (780) 496-6079

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.
SDAB-D-10-079                               4                              April 15, 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.    If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
      for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
      R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, 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.

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



                                                    Ms. S. Kwan, 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: April 15, 2010
                                                          APPLICATION NO: 96271768-001
                                                          FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-080

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated March 9, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Increase the number of dwelling units from 23 to 24 in an existing Apartment House (change
existing office space to a bachelor suite)

on Lots 27 to 30, Block 5, Plan RN43, located at 9704 – 115 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on March 31, 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 of the decision of the Development Authority
                    to refuse an application to increase the number of dwelling units from 23
                    to 24 in an existing Apartment House (change existing office space to a
                    bachelor suite), located at 9704 – 115 Avenue. The subject site is zoned
                    RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone. The proposed development was refused
                    because of an excess in the maximum allowable Density.
SDAB-D-10-080                         2                             April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                The Board heard from Mr. Rajkovic, the Appellant, who made the
                following points in support of the appeal:

                1.     The Apartment House was built in 1994.
                2.     The application is to increase the number of dwelling units in the
                       building from 23 units to 24 units.
                3.     The existing unit that has been used as office space is
                       approximately 400 square feet in size.
                4.     This unit is self-contained, with a kitchen and a bathroom and has
                       on occasion been used as a guest suite.
                5.     Photographs were submitted to illustrate the existing office space
                       in the Apartment House.
                6.     There was some discussion regarding the provision of on-site
                       parking spaces and it was determined that there are 26 parking
                       spaces and one visitor parking space provided on site.
                7.     The existing apartment building had been built in two stages and
                       there was no direct access between the newer apartment building
                       and the older building.
                8.     A development permit to allow 23 dwelling units in this building
                       was approved in1994.
                9.     The building has existed since that time without complaint from
                       any of the neighbouring property owners.
                10.    It was clarified that the Board can approve variances to the
                       requirements of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw that cannot be
                       approved by the Development Officer.
                11.    It was his opinion that the proposed change in use from an office to
                       a bachelor suite will not affect neighbouring property owners and,
                       in fact, will have less of an impact than the use of the dwelling as
                       office space.
DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of one dwelling unit in the maximum allowable Density, the
                deficiency of 0.09 metres in the minimum required Front Yard, the
                deficiency of five parking spaces in the minimum number of required on-
                site parking spaces, and the deficiency in the minimum required Amenity
                Space be permitted
SDAB-D-10-080                                 3                             April 15, 2010


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                        The Board finds the following:

                        1.     The proposed development is an addition to an Apartment House
                               which is a Permitted Use in the RA7 Zone.
                        2.     The proposed development is simply a change in use and does not
                               require any physical changes to the existing Apartment Building.
                        3.     Based on the evidence provided, the variances required will not
                               negatively impact any of the neighbouring property owners and, in
                               fact, will have less of an impact than the previous use of the space
                               as an office.
                        4.     Based on the evidence provided, the existing Apartment House is
                               located on 97 Street which is a major arterial roadway and transit
                               corridor. Therefore, the proposed change in use is consistent with
                               the Municipal Development Plan which directs and encourages
                               that medium and higher density growth and development align
                               with premium transit locations (LRT and transit stations and high
                               frequency transit corridors).
                        5.     There were no letters of objection received and no one appeared in
                               opposition to the proposed development.
                        6.     Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
                               interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially
                               interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                               parcels of land.”

               IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

     The following information may not pertain to your specific situation. Should you have any
               questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (780) 496-6079

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.
SDAB-D-10-080                               4                              April 15, 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.    If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
      for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
      R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, 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.

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



                                                    Ms. S. Kwan, 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: April 15, 2010
                                                         APPLICATION NO: 96706982-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-081

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

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

Construct an Off-premises Freestanding Sign (3 metres by 6 metres – double sided facing
north/south)

on Lot 1, Block 37, Plan 8175ET, located at 10004 – 167 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on March 31, 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 of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to refuse an application to construct an Off-premises Freestanding Sign (3
                     metres by 6 metres – double sided facing north/south), located at 10004 –
                     167 Street NW. The subject site is zoned IB Industrial Business Zone.
                     The proposed development was refused because of a deficiency in the
                     minimum required building setback adjacent to a major arterial roadway
                     and intersecting arterial roadway within a Major Commercial Corridor and
                     because it was the Development Officer’s opinion that the proposed Sign
                     will have a negative impact on the surrounding development.
SDAB-D-10-081                         2                             April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                The Board notes that one letter of objection was received from an affected
                property owner at 10007 – 167 Street, a copy of which is on file.

                The Board also notes that four letters of support were submitted by
                adjacent property owners, copies of which are on file.

                The Board heard from Mr. St. Arnaud, Legal Counsel for the Appellant,
                Joey Matwychuk, who was also in attendance. Mr. St. Arnaud provided a
                written submission, including photographs, a copy of which is on file. Mr.
                St. Arnaud provided the following information in support of the appeal:

                1.     Ms. Matwychuk, the owner of the sign, misread the information
                       contained on the Sign Combo Permit application that she received
                       from the Planning and Development Department and assumed that
                       the application had been approved and therefore proceded with the
                       construction of the sign.
                2.     It was acknowledged that the proposed sign does not comply with
                       the minimum 14.0 metres setback from 100 Avenue but he
                       referenced numerous photographs to illustrate that there are
                       numerous Off-premises and On-premises signs existing along 100
                       Avenue that do not comply with the setback requirement. He
                       estimated that the setbacks varied from 14 feet to 36 feet.
                       Therefore, it was his opinion that the proposed sign is not
                       uncharacteristic of the area.
                3.     The Major Commercial Corridor ends on 167 Street. The
                       boundary line runs directly down the centre of 167 Street.
                       Therefore, this site is only 39 feet from being outside the Major
                       Commercial Corridor where the 14 metre setback would not be
                       required.
                4.     Several photographs were used to illustrate the existing
                       commercial signage along 100 Avenue and that the proposed sign
                       would not create additional clutter to the streetscape or impact the
                       existing landscaping along 100 Avenue.
                5.     Several photographs were submitted to illustrate the existing sight
                       lines and respond to the concerns of the owner of the Stallion Boot
                       & Jean Company, located at 10007 – 167 Street. It was his
                       opinion that the proposed sign would not interfere with the sight
                       lines of the existing signs for Stallion Boot & Jean Company.
                6.     It was reiterated that Ms. Matwychuk did not deliberately
                       circumvent the permitting process but rather misinterpreted the
                       information received from the Planning and Development
                       Department.
SDAB-D-10-081                         3                             April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                7.     It was confirmed that a previous application for the same sign was
                       refused in 2009.
                8.     It was clarified that the Off-premises Freestanding Sign is a double
                       sided sign facing east and west and that a mistake was made on the
                       application which indicates that the sign faces north and south.
                       Ms. Matwychuk attempted to correct the scope of application and
                       was advised that this could be addressed by the Subdivision and
                       Development Appeal Board.
                9.     His client is prepared to mitigate the impact of the sign on
                       neighbouring property owners by relocating the sign further to the
                       north to provide a 4.5 metres setback from 100 Avenue, a setback
                       distance which is within the variance powers of a Development
                       Officer. However, this proposed change had not been discussed
                       with the owner of Stallion Boot and Jean Company.
                10.    Ms. Matwychuk clarified that the letter of support submitted from
                       the owner of Big League Apparel included the owner’s home
                       address rather than the business address. A corrected copy was
                       submitted.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Sol Rolingher, representing Mr. Dan
                Semaka, owner of the Stallion Boot & Jean Company, located at 10007 –
                167 Street. Mr. Rolingher provided a detailed written submission,
                including photographs, excerpts from the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, and
                petitions with signatures in opposition to the proposed sign obtained from
                business owners, area residents and customers, a copy of which is on file.
                Mr. Rolingher made the following points in opposition to the proposed
                sign:

                1. City Council, including the Mayor, consolidated the 100 Avenue
                   Planning Study in 2008 and addressed the need for visual
                   enhancements to the western corridor along 100 Avenue leading into
                   the City. One of the recommendations was that quality landscaping
                   and uniform setbacks should be maintained along 100 Avenue.
                2. It was his opinion that the Applicant should be required to comply
                   with the setback requirements contained in Section 59F.2 and Section
                   59G.2 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                3. Neighbouring business owners, the condominium owners who reside
                   south across 100 Avenue and customers of neighbouring businesses
                   were canvassed regarding the proposed sign. Petitions containing
                   signatures in opposition to the proposed sign have been submitted.
                   Sixty-three of the sixty-five condominium residents are opposed to the
SDAB-D-10-081                         4                             April 15, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):


                   proposed sign. All of the business owners canvassed opposed the
                   proposed sign and 359 customers in this area are opposed to the
                   proposed sign.
                4. The signs located at 10007 – 167 Street, the Stallion Boot & Jean
                   Company, are used to promote the on-site business and have been
                   located on this site for an extended period of time without complaint.

                In rebuttal, Mr. St. Arnaud made the following points:

                1.      It was his opinion that the condominium owners on the south side
                        of 100 Avenue already overlook a business area with numerous
                        signs and that the proposed sign will not create any additional
                        impact.
                2.      This is a commercial corridor and signage is an inherent part of
                        this area.
                3.      The proposed sign will not be lit or illuminated.
                4.      His client is prepared to relocate the sign to provide a 4.5 metres
                        setback from 100 Avenue, a setback distance which is within the
                        variance powers of a Development Officer to approve, in an
                        attempt to mitigate the concerns of neighbouring property owners.
                5.      The advertising on the proposed sign will change approximately
                        every four months.
                6.      It would be his preference to have the proposed sign approved for a
                        five year period. If the Board decided to approve the sign for a
                        shorter period of time it would cause some financial hardship.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the Development Officer
                CONFIRMED

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      A Freestanding Off-premises Sign is a Discretionary Use in the IB
                        Zone.
                2.      The proposed Freestanding Off-premises Sign does not comply
                        with the minimum 14.0 metres setback, pursuant to Section
                        813.4(4) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
SDAB-D-10-081                                 5                               April 15, 2010

REASONS FOR DECISION (CONTINUED):

                        3.     Pursuant to Section 400.4(3) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, a
                               minimum Yard of 6.0 metres shall be required where any lot line
                               of a Site abuts a public roadway, other than a Lane, or abuts the
                               property line of a Site zoned residential.
                        4.     Pursuant to Section 59F.2(2)(c) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw,
                               all proposed Freestanding Off-premises Sign locations shall be
                               reviewed in context with the surrounding development, such as
                               (but not limited to): the architectural theme of the area; any historic
                               designations; the requirements of any Statutory Plan; any
                               streetscape improvements; and proximity to residential
                               development.
                        5.     Pursuant to Section 59G.2(3)(a) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw,
                               any Freestanding Off-premises Sign shall be located 30.0 metres
                               from the property line of any Residential Zone.
                        6.     The proposed Freestanding Off-premises Sign is not consistent
                               with the 100 Avenue Planning Study which recommended that
                               new commercial development along 100 Avenue be attractive in
                               appearance and that quality landscaping and uniform setbacks are
                               required.
                        7.     The Off-premises Freestanding Sign was erected without an
                               approved Development Permit and the scope of application was for
                               a double sided sign facing north and south. The Board notes that
                               the sign that has been erected faces east and west.
                        8.     Based on the evidence provided, 233 residents and business
                               owners in the area have signed petitions in opposition to the
                               proposed sign.
                        9.     The proposed Off-premises Freestanding Sign will interfere with
                               the amenities of the area and will add visual clutter to the
                               streetscape which is contrary to the General Purpose of the Major
                               Commercial Corridors Overlay, Section 813.1 of the Edmonton
                               Zoning Bylaw.”


               IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

     The following information may not pertain to your specific situation. Should you have any
               questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (780) 496-6079

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.
SDAB-D-10-081                                6                              April 15, 2010

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.     If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
       for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
       R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, 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.

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



                                                     Ms. S. Kwan, Presiding Officer
                                                     SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                     APPEAL BOARD
c.c.   Mr. Semaka
       Mr. St. Arnaud
       Mr. Rolingher
       Mr. O’Leary

								
To top