Docstoc

SDAB Decisions - March 13_ 2008

Document Sample
SDAB Decisions - March 13_ 2008 Powered By Docstoc
					                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175


                                                           DATE: March 28, 2008
                                                           APPLICATION NO: 67284832-003
                                                           FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-045

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated February 13, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for
permission to:

Construct an Accessory Building (6 metres by 14.63 metres) covered swimming pool, existing
without permits

on Lot 72, Block 16, Plan 7521612, located at 18619 – 92 Avenue, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on March 13, 2008. The
decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to construct an Accessory Building (6 metres by
                     14.63 metres) covered swimming pool, existing without permits located
                     at 18619 – 92 Avenue. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached
                     Residential Zone. The refusal is based on an excess in allowable height
                     of an Accessory Building and an excess in the allowable number of
                     storeys.

                     The Board Officer noted that, as a result of an amendment to the
                     Edmonton Zoning Bylaw which took effect on March 10, 2008, one of
                     the reasons for refusal by the Development Officer (excess of 0.6 metres
                     in height) no longer applied to this property. The Accessory Building is
                     under the allowable height in the RF1 Zone.

                     A petition containing seven signatures in opposition to the proposed
                     development was received and provided to the Board.
SDAB-D-08-045                        2                                   March        28,
                2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from Jodee Srochenski, the Appellant and one of the
                property owners, accompanied by his wife, Sierra Evans-Davies.

                Mr. Srochenski provided the following information as part of his
                submission:

                (1)    Mr. Srochenski provided the Board with a petition in support of
                       the proposed development signed by nine nearby neighbours
                       residing within the 60 metre notification radius and one residing
                       outside of the 60 metre notification radius.
                (2)    The Board had three copies of blueprints containing different
                       schemes for the interior of the proposed development with only
                       one of those blueprint copies having been stamped “Refused” by
                       the Planning and Development Department.
                (3)    The Appellant provided a brief history of the proposed
                       development which began with the installation of an uncovered
                       swimming pool for which he had obtained a permit in 2007.
                (4)    Initially the Appellants had intended to cover the swimming pool
                       with a glass atrium on wheels which they subsequently
                       determined was not feasible in respect of the weather associated
                       with this climate.
                (5)    As a result, it was then decided to frame in the pool; as a result,
                       the Appellant had numerous verbal discussions with staff of the
                       Planning and Development Department. Mr. Srochenski did
                       confirm that he had commenced construction of the Accessory
                       Building without a development permit and without working
                       blueprints.
                (6)    The construction of the Accessory Building was commenced prior
                       to obtaining a development/building permit.
                (7)    Mr. Srochenski had difficulty obtaining construction drawings of
                       the proposed development in a timely fashion as result of the high
                       workload on commercial draftsmen (citing the large amount of
                       construction being carried on in the City).
                (8)    The blueprints provided to the Board that were stamped
                       “Refused” by the Planning and Development Department
                       depicted two options for the second floor development, one being
                       a suite and the second as a patio area, play area and washroom.
SDAB-D-08-045                        3                                   March        28,
                2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                (9)    Mr. Srochenski informed the Board that the finished proposed
                       development was not intended to be used as a suite on a
                       commercial basis but there was a possibility he and his wife may
                       consider using the suite in the future as accommodation in the
                       possible event their then grown children remain under their roof
                       “for as long as possible”.
                (10)   The second floor presently contains a washroom, with the
                       balance of the area being undeveloped other than the floor and
                       stairway to the basement level being in place.
                (11)   In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Srochenski
                       indicated that the exterior of the Accessory Building will be the
                       same stucco finish as that of the principal dwelling on the subject
                       site. With respect to the issue of drainage raised by the
                       neighbours opposed to the proposed development, the Appellant
                       noted that a French drain had been installed which would handle
                       the runoff and so it would not affect any adjacent neighbours.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the
                excess of one storey be permitted, subject to the following conditions:

                1.     The finish of the Accessory Building shall be the same stucco
                       finish as currently exists on the principal dwelling.
                2.     There shall be no interior partitions on the second storey of the
                       proposed accessory building except those partitions required to
                       enclose a washroom consisting of a sink and toilet only.
                3.     If requested, installation of a tub or shower shall be at the
                       swimming pool level only.
                4.     Drawings, drawn to scale, shall be provided to the satisfaction of
                       the Board on or before May 28, 2008 showing:
                       1.      no interior partitions on the second floor of the accessory
                               building other than for a washroom consisting of a toilet
                               and sink only;
                       2.      any tub or shower facilities shall be limited to and shown
                               on the swimming pool level; and
                       3.      the windows located on the second floor facing to the
                       south and east shall be made of an opaque material. A sample of
                               the material to be used shall be provided to the Board.
SDAB-D-08-045                           4                                   March        28,
                  2008


REASONS FOR DECISION:


                  The Board finds the following:

                  (1)    Based on evidence provided to the Board, the Board is satisfied
                         with the overall height of this proposed Accessory Building. The
                         Board is of the opinion that granting a variance of one storey will
                         not have an adverse affect on the amenities of the neighbourhood
                         with the conditions that have been placed on the subject site.
                  (2)    Section 110.4(10) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw provides that
                         only one dwelling unit per residential lot is permitted in the RF1
                         Zone. By placing conditions on the second floor of the proposed
                         Accessory Building, the Board is confident the Accessory Building
                         will not be used as an additional dwelling unit (which is neither a
                         permitted nor discretionary use in the zone).
                  (3)    With the condition that the exterior finish of the accessory
                         building be the same as that of the existing residence, the Board is
                         of the opinion that the accessory building will be characteristic of
                         other buildings already in the neighbourhood.
                  (4)    The Board is of the opinion that by imposing a condition for an
                         opaque window finish for windows above the basement floor of
                         the Accessory Building, they have addressed specific privacy
                         concerns noted by the neighbours in opposition to the Accessory
                         Building.
                  (5)    The Board notes that while there were seven neighbours in
                         objection to the proposed development, there were also nine
                         names in support, with eight of the nine properties within the 60
                         metre notification radius.
                  (6)    Based on above reasons and with conditions imposed by the
                         Board on the proposed development, the proposed development
                         would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
                         neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use,
                         enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”



                  IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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


SDAB-D-08-045                           5                                   March        28,
2008
2.   The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with
     this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development
     and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.
3.   When an application for a development permit has been approved by the Subdivision
     and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
                   Appeal Board; and
            (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.
SDAB-D-08-045                               6                                    March        28,
                     2008



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

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

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

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

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



NOTE:


        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-08-045                           7                                  March       28,
                  2008


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




                                               Mr. A. Skoreyko, Chairman
                                               SUBDIVISION       AND     DEVELOPMENT
                                               APPEAL BOARD
                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175


                                                           DATE: March 28, 2008
                                                           APPLICATION NO.: 69599418-001
                                                           FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-037


               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated January 31, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for
permission to:

Construct and operate a General Retail building and a Health Service building (Optometric
Centre)

on Lot 90, Block 8, Plan 0323954, located at 6245 – 199 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on March 13, 2008. The decision of the
Board was as follows:


SUMMARY OF HEARING:



February 21, 2008

MOTION:
                     “that the appeal of this matter shall be scheduled for March 13, 2008 at
                     the written request of the Respondent and the written consent of the
                     Appellant.”
SDAB-D-08-037                          2                                     March         28,
                 2008


March 13, 2008

MOTION:

                 “that SDAB-D-08-037 be raised from the table.”


SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                 “The Board heard an appeal of the Development Officer’s decision to
                 approve, with conditions, an application to construct and operate a
                 Professional, Financial and Office Support Building and a Health Service
                 building (Optometric Centre), located at 6245 – 199 Street The subject
                 site is zoned CNC Neighbourhood Convenience Commercial Zone. The
                 appeal is based on concerns regarding the variance that was granted in
                 the minimum number of required parking spaces.

                 The Board first heard from the Philip Starkman, the Appellant and an
                 adjacent property owner who provided the following information:

                 (1)    The variance being requested is for 11 parking spaces which
                        represents 28 percent of the required parking for the proposed
                        development.
                 (2)    His development is located at 6231 - 199 Street, the property
                        located directly south of the subject site.
                 (3)    The subject site and his property share a common drive and
                        entrance off 199 Street. If the proposed development proceeds as
                        planned the two properties will, in effect, share the parking. As a
                        result, his position is that if there is not sufficient parking for the
                        proposed development, it will overflow into his parking area
                        given the configuration of the entrance and parking areas.
                 (4)    There was no room on the subject site to expand the parking
                        area, so the only person impacted is himself. He supported his
                        position by noting that the properties are surrounded by
                        parkland, a major street with no parking allowed, and to the
                        south of his property, by land that will be used to construct a
                        Husky carwash.
                 (5)    He built his development in accordance with the Edmonton
                        Zoning Bylaw and advised the Board that the parking spaces on
                        his site exceeded the required minimum number.
SDAB-D-08-037                        3                                   March       28,
                2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                (6)    If the proposed development permit is granted it will possibly
                       create considerable hardship on him and his tenants especially
                       noting the difficulty for landlords to police parking. He based
                       this position on experiences with other properties that he owns
                       throughout Edmonton.
                (7)    His concerns were that the nature of the parking being associated
                       with an optometry centre is not for “in and out clients”. People
                       attending at a site for medical procedures will take longer and
                       require longer parking time.
                (8)    He asked that the Board consider the future use of the property as
                       he was particularly concerned with what business activity would
                       be taking place in the proposed development five to ten years
                       from now.
                (9)    He concluded by noting:
                       a.     He was not against development and suggested
                              alternatives to the proposed development.            These
                              alternatives included the following:
                              (i)     “delete” the basement area;
                              (ii)    “delete” the second building;
                              (iii) underground parking; or
                              (iv)    a complete redesign of the subject site.
                       b.     “Overbuilding” a site, such as the proposed development,
                              in his opinion, is not a good development.
                       c.     He has legal obligations to his tenants, not the least of
                              which is, to ensure adequate parking for them to do
                              business. Further, he noted that there are few available
                              unused spaces in his parking lot.

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

                (1)    The vacant site immediately south of his development is slated to
                       be the site of a wand carwash building so this lot would not be
                       available for additional parking spaces.
                (2)    The lands east of both his and the Respondent’s sites is zoned
                       agricultural and, in his opinion, is being preserved to become an
                       interchange for Anthony Henday Drive at some point in the
                       future.
                (3)    There is a large church located to the north of the subject site.
SDAB-D-08-037                        4                                   March        28,
                2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                (4)    His tenants include a Royal Bank branch, an M & M Meat Store,
                       and a dental office. His experiences were based the experiences
                       he has observed in respect of the dental offices which confirm
                       that medical type practices require additional parking given the
                       number of people using their services and the time they spend at
                       that office.
                (5)    Based on his experiences elsewhere, using restricted parking
                       signs will not help.
                (6)    He does not object to the primary building but views the second
                       building as an “overbuilding” of the site especially since there is
                       no specific information as to what will be the proposed use. He
                       again reaffirmed that developers should not overbuild a site at the
                       sacrifice of parking.
                (7)    He was of the opinion that the requested variance was too large;
                       he would not be opposed to a more minor variance.

                The Board then heard from Ray Davis, of Bunt & Associates together with
                the property owner, Dr. Richard McCormack. Mr. Davis provided the
                following information:

                (1)    He had been retained to review and assess the parking
                       requirements for the site.
                (2)    He provided the Board with additional documentation including
                       the interior design schematics of the proposed development and
                       his assessment of the on-site parking. In his assessment he used
                       different methods, those being split uses, accessory uses and
                       public space such as a restaurant (details set out in his March 12,
                       2008 letter). He concluded that whatever method is used to
                       calculate parking, all methods would be accommodated by the
                       current number of parking spaces proposed on the subject site
                       (30 parking spaces, not 28)
                (3)    He noted much of the use attributed to the two buildings is
                       “accessory”, specifically describing the use of utility rooms,
                       exercise rooms, staff washrooms and showers. The accessory use
                       was primarily in the basement of the optometry building labelled
                       “Building 1” on the floor plan.
                (4)    In his opinion, the 28 parking spaces (actually 30) being
                       proposed was sufficient to accommodate the uses proposed by the
                       property owner.


SDAB-D-08-037                        5                                   March        28,
                2008
SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                The Board then heard from Dr. Richard McCormack, the property
                owner, who provided the following additional information:

                (1)    There would be four optometrists working in the proposed
                       development and the total staff would number approximately 13
                       people. He currently has a staff of seven.
                (2)    He had made inquiries regarding off-site parking for his staff.
                       Specifically,
                       a)      He had made inquiries regarding the utility right-of-way
                               to the east of the subject site. The owner of the right-of-
                               way was amenable to providing off-site parking on the
                               right-of-way subject to Dr. McCormack providing a
                               gravelled parking lot. However, as a further condition,
                               Dr. McCormack would always be required to vacate the
                               parking area of both gravel and cars upon 48 hours notice
                               from the gas company.
                       b)      A number of Dr. McCormack’s clients were members of
                               the West Edmonton Christian Assembly and he felt
                               comfortable in advancing the position that he could
                               acquire lease rights to parking on the Church property to
                               the north during week days.
                (3)    The optometry offices were never open on Sundays, but there
                       could be overlap with Church parking on Saturdays.
                (4)    He had made an effort, after being notified of the appeal, to
                       monitor parking at his current Wolf Willow office site.
                (5)    The basement in the proposed development was creating the
                       parking deficiency issue. This area would be used for internal
                       operations, specifically no client visits or patient examinations
                       would be taking place in the basement. He concluded from this
                       that there were enough parking spaces proposed on the subject
                       site if the basement were discounted in calculating the
                       requirements for parking.
                (6)    The use proposed for the second building would be that of a
                       Professional, Financial or Office Support Service – it was not
                       intended to have a restaurant in that building. He was seeking a
                       doctor, chiropractor or lawyer as a potential tenant.
                (7)    He would have the ability to restrict his employees from parking
                       on the site in the event he was able to get off-site parking.
                       Further, Dr. McCormack encourages his staff to use alternative
                       modes of transportation (i.e. bicycles, etc.).

SDAB-D-08-037                        6                                   March        28,
                2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                In response to questions from the Board, Dr. McCormack offered the
                following information:
                (1)    He conceded that there were 25 seats described in the waiting
                       room plan. However, he wanted the Board to be aware that those
                       seats could be occupied by multiple people arriving at the office
                       in one vehicle.
                (2)    He noted he would accept restrictions that a restaurant would not
                       be allowed on the subject site.
                (3)    He was amenable to submitting either a letter of authorization or
                       a plan from the adjacent Church or the right-of-way operator in
                       relation to securing off-site parking for his staff.
                (4)    The proposed optometry clinic building was approximately 350
                       square metres on each floor. He conceded this space would
                       require 32 parking spaces in total. However, he again noted that
                       in the event only the main floor of the building was used to
                       calculate required parking spaces, the minimum required
                       parking spaces could be reduced by 16 parking spaces.
                (5)    He noted that with the proposed uses on the subject site, the
                       Edmonton Zoning Bylaw required a greater number of parking
                       spaces than if the proposed uses were general retail and
                       convenience retail uses.
                (6)    Despite requests to the City of Edmonton Transportation
                       Department, he was not able to obtain any reasonable
                       concessions for a site specific entrance from 199 Street onto his
                       property.
                (7)    He was agreeable to accepting a condition that the public not be
                       allowed into the basement of the optometry clinic.
                (8)    The parking area could not be reconfigured to accommodate
                       more parking spaces, but there was a possibility they could have
                       32 spaces.

                Mr. Starkman, in rebuttal, provided the following information:

                1.     In all likelihood, the property line on the east side of both
                       properties would have a fence erected as this was a requirement
                       imposed by the developer.
                2.     There was going to be a multi-use walking trail abutting the east
                       side of the property and this would affect the ability of the
                       property owner of the subject site to gain additional parking from
                       the utility right-of-way.

SDAB-D-08-037                         7                                     March         28,
                2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                3.     In conclusion, he wanted the Board to note the difficulty in
                       policing any solution that contemplates off-site parking.
                       Specifically, he stated that once the development is built, it is built
                       and from that the Board could conclude it would be difficult to
                       police something after it has been, in part, permitted. He felt that
                        human nature being what it is would result in staff members and
                        clients parking their vehicles where they are the least restricted
                        and cited heavy snowfalls which would encourage people who
                        park off-site to park on the premises instead.


DECISION:

                 that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED



REASONS FOR DECISION:


                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The proposed developments are both Permitted Uses in the CNC
                        Zone.
                 2.     Given the potential for additional growth in the immediate area,
                        it is the opinion of the Board that parking requirements will
                        increase in the future.
                 3.     No evidence of legal arrangements for off-site parking was
                        presented in detail.
                 4.     The Board notes that the potential to use the Church for off-site
                        parking was less than ideal as it is a considerable distance from
                        the subject site. Further, in respect of using the utility right-of-
                        way for off-site parking, this may be short lived or impossible to
                        use as a result of the requirement to vacate on 48 hours notice
                        and the potential that a fence be built along the shared property
                        line.
                 5.     The Board accepts the argument of the Appellant that the
                        deficiency in parking spaces for the proposed development
                        combined with the configuration of both sites may result in
                        overflow parking onto his site and this will, at a minimum, be
                        difficult for him or his tenants to police.

SDAB-D-08-037                          8                                   March        28,
                 2008


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                 6.     Based on above reasons, the Board is of the opinion that the
                        proposed development would materially interfere with or affect
                        the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”


                 IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
     Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, located
     on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

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

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

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

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

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




SDAB-D-08-037                            9                                   March       28,
                   2008


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

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

     (2)    An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a
            judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision
            sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:
      (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
             Appeal Board; and
      (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.

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

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

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

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

      (a)    are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
             and
      (b)    are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
             granted, at the appeal.
SDAB-D-08-037                              10                                 March       28,
                     2008


NOTE:

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

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




                                                  Mr. A. Zariski, Presiding Officer
                                                  SUBDIVISION        AND       DEVELOPMENT
                                                  APPEAL BOARD

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:5/6/2010
language:English
pages:17