Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Subdivision and

VIEWS: 46 PAGES: 35

									                      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: August 3, 2007
10149 – 156 Street                                         APPLICATION NO: 65677102-001
EDMONTON, AB T5P 3Z2                                FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-147
                NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated May 30, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Operate a Minor Alcohol Sales use establishment (Stony Plain Road Liquor Store)

on Lot 2, Block 2, Plan 9524233, located at 15540 – Stony Plain Road, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on June 28, 2007 and July 19,
2007. The decision of the Board was as follows:

June 28, 2007

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                      “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                      to refuse an application to operate a Minor Alcohol Sales use
                      establishment (Stony Plain Road Liquor Store), located at 15540 – Stony
                      Plain Road. The subject site is zoned CB1 Low Intensity Business Zone.
                      The refusal was due to the proximity of the proposed Minor Alcohol
                      Sales establishment within 500 metres of another Alcohol Sales
                      establishment.

                      The Board notes that there was one letter of objection from the
                      residential property owner at 10128 – 154 Street, which is on file and
                      there were no letters received in support of the proposed development.

                      The Board then heard from Mr. Mok and Mr. Cameron, owners of the
                      proposed liquor store who made the following points:

                      1. The original development permit application for a Minor Alcohol
                         Sales establishment was made prior to the change in the Edmonton
                         Zoning Bylaw wherein the regulations were changed to set the
                         minimum distance between Alcohol Sales establishments at a
                         distance greater than 500 metres.
SDAB-D-07-147                              2                              August 3, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                2. The existing Major Alcohol Sales establishment located at 10149 –
                   156 Street has been in existence for over 10 years.
                3. Their plan is to move the existing Major Alcohol Sales establishment
                   to a smaller area within an adjacent building approximately 115
                   feet away. The proposed development will be smaller in size so it
                   would be classified as a Minor Alcohol Sales establishment.
                4. They indicated that they own the site of both the existing Major
                   Alcohol Sales establishment and the proposed Minor Alcohol Sales
                   establishment. They also own all of the land between 155 Street and
                   156 Street and Stony Plain Road to 102 Avenue.
                5. They plan to demolish the existing building that houses the Major
                   Alcohol Sales establishment.
                6. They are planning to redevelop the area to the north of the proposed
                   Minor Alcohol Sales establishment.
                7. This redevelopment would include a residential condominium
                   project and in their opinion it would significantly improve the area.
                8. In response to the letter of objection, it was their opinion that the
                   concerned property owner was not aware that they are the owners
                   of the existing establishment and that all they want to do is to
                   relocate the existing establishment.

                With regard to the first point raised by Mr. Mok and Mr. Cameron, the
                Chairman clarified that the Board has been informed by the Board’s
                Legal Counsel that the Bylaw in place at the time of the hearing is the
                Bylaw that is applied in determining an appeal.

                In response to questions from the Board Mr. Mok and Mr. Cameron
                made the following points:

                1. The existing bingo hall is currently being redeveloped into a number
                   of different businesses including a Minor Alcohol Sales
                   establishment.
                2. They purchased the property in December 2006.
                3. They would close the existing Major Alcohol Sales establishment
                   once the new Minor Alcohol Sales establishment was ready to open.
                4. It was not their intention to have two Alcohol Sales establishments in
                   close proximity.
                5. They would terminate the existing Major Alcohol Sales permit at
                   10149 – 156 Street.
                6. The next closest Alcohol Sales establishment was at approximately
                   154 Street and Stony Plain Road.
SDAB-D-07-147                         3                                 August 3, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                7. There are a number of Major Alcohol Sales establishments located
                   within 500 metres of the proposed location, however, there are no
                    Minor or Major Alcohol Sales establishments between 155 Street
                    and 156 Street.
                8. They are planning to relocate and down size the existing Alcohol
                    Sales establishment and it was their opinion that the 500 metres
                    Bylaw requirement would not apply to them.
                9. In their opinion the owners of the Alcohol Sales establishments
                    within 500 metres of the subject site did not object to the proposed
                    Minor Alcohol Sales establishment because, in their relocation, they
                    will be downsizing their Alcohol Sales establishment.
                10. It was their opinion that the intent of the Bylaw was to limit the
                    proximity of new Alcohol Sales establishments and that the Bylaw
                    would not affect relocations.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be TABLED TO JULY 19, 2007 to allow the Board to
                obtain a legal opinion regarding the authority of the Board to vary a Use
                Definition contained in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.


July 19, 2007


MOTION:
                “that SDAB-D-07-147 be raised from the table.”

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                At the outset of the hearing the Chairman indicated that this appeal was
                tabled from June 28, 2007, in order to obtain a legal opinion regarding
                the authority of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to vary a
                Use Definition contained in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw. The Chairman
                advised that a Text Amendment was approved by City Council on April
                17, 2007, to change the use class definition of both Major and Minor
                Alcohol Sales. The amendment requires a separation distance of 500
                metres from any other existing Minor or Major Alcohol Sales Use
                establishments.
SDAB-D-07-147                          4                                  August 3, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                 The Chairman indicated that the Appellant had previously stated at the
                 hearing of June 28, 2007 that there are other Major / Minor Alcohol
                 Sales Use establishments located within 500 metres of the proposed site.
                 This was subsequently confirmed by the Board following a review of
                 information provided by Board staff.

                 The Chairman advised that the Board does not have authority to change
                 Use Class Definitions contained in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.

                 The Appellants queried the Board as to why a variance could not be
                 granted and the application approved. The Board reiterated that because
                 recent amendments to the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw were approved by
                 City Council, the Board cannot grant a variance to allow the
                 establishment of a Minor Alcohol Sales use within the required 500
                 metres separation space.

DECISION:
                 that the appeal be DENIED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The proposed development is for a Minor Alcohol Sales Use
                        establishment.
                 2.     Evidence was presented by the Appellant and confirmed by Board
                        staff that there are two existing Major/Minor Alcohol Sales Use
                        establishments located within 500 metres of the boundary of the
                        proposed Minor Alcohol Sales Use establishment.
                 3.     Section 7.4(33) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states that Minor
                        Alcohol Sales, where located no less than 500 metres from any
                        other Major or Minor Alcohol sales Use, means the development
                        used for the retail sale of any and all types of alcoholic beverages
                        to the public.
                 4.     The Board does not have the authority to change a Use Class
                        Definition contained in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw and
                        therefore cannot vary the minimum required separation space of
                        500 metres from any other Major or Minor Alcohol Sales Use
                        establishment.
SDAB-D-07-147                             5                                 August 3, 2007


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                    5.      The proposed development does not comply with the definition of
                            Minor Alcohol Sales Use establishment as per Section 7.4(33) of
                            the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw since it is located within 500 metres
                            of existing Major / Minor Alcohol Sales Use establishments and
                            therefore is neither a Permitted nor Discretionary Use in the CB1
                            Zone.
                    6.      Section 85(3) states that any Major or Minor Alcohol Sales Use
                            establishment shall not be located closer than 500 metres from
                            any other Major or Minor Alcohol Sales Use establishment.”


                    IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

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-07-147                           6                               August 3, 2007

      (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-07-147                              7                                 August 3, 2007

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

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




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

cc:     Fred Mok
        Dan Cameron
                     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: August 3, 2007
9658 – 84 Avenue                                           APPLICATION NO: 68271987-001
EDMONTON, AB T6C 1E7                                       FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-164

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 20, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage – 6.1 metres by 7.32 metres)

on Lot 4, Block 1, Plan 2368Q, located at 9666 – 84 Avenue, was heard by the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 19, 2007. The decision of the Board
was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to construct an Accessory Building (Detached
                     Garage – 6.1 metres by 7.32 metres) located at 9666 – 84 Avenue. The
                     subject site is zoned RF2 Low Density Infill Zone and is located within
                     the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay and Strathcona Area Redevelopment
                     Plan. The refusal is based on an excess in allowable Height for an
                     Accessory Building or Structure.

                     The Board Officer notes that there were no letters of support or objection
                     on file.

                     Terry Reith, the property owner, provided the following information in
                     support of the appeal:

                     1.     He purchased the property containing a small 850 square foot
                            house without a garage approximately 4 years ago.
                     2.     The neighbourhood is being redeveloped and many new larger
                            houses and garages have been constructed since he purchased
                            this property.
                     3.     More storage space is required because the house is very small.
SDAB-D-07-164                        2                                   August 3, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                4.     Mr. Reith’s mother passed away recently and he requires space to
                       store his mother’s estate and family heirlooms.
                5.     The proposed detached garage with a loft will provide sufficient
                       space to meet his storage needs.
                6.     The footprint of the garage complies with site coverage
                       requirements.
                7.     He would like to retain a rear yard and plant a garden and
                       therefore a smaller building pocket is preferable.
                8.     Revised plans were submitted subsequent to the plans reviewed
                       by the Development Officer to address the concerns of his
                       neighbour to the east and this neighbour now supports the
                       development based on the revised plans.

                Mr. McCarty, the builder, provided the following technical information:

                1.     The proposed detached garage will have a 9.5/12 roof pitch.
                2.     The height of the proposed garage will be 17 feet, 1 inch to the
                       peak of the roof and 12 feet, 6 inches to the midpoint of the roof.
                3.     The main floor will be eight feet from grade to the floor of the
                       proposed second storey. The height of the second storey from
                       the floor to the interior of the peak will be 7 feet, 6 inches.
                4.     Mr. Reith advised that the setbacks for the rear yard and the west
                       side yard have changed from the measurements that are on the
                       site plan that the Development Officer reviewed.

                In response to questions, the following information was provided by Mr.
                Reith and Mr. McCarty:

                1.     The garage will only be serviced with electricity and gas. No
                       water or sewage services will be installed.
                2.     The second storey of the garage will not be used as living space.
                3.     The height of the garage to the ridge line is approximately the
                       same as the height of the house to the ridge line.
                4.     There is 3 feet, 3 inches from the west wall of the garage to the
                       west property line and 5 feet from the rear of the garage to the
                       rear property line.
                5.     There is a detached garage with a carport on the property
                       immediately adjacent to the east and that garage projects further
                       into the rear yard than will the proposed detached garage.
                6.     The proposed window dormer will overlook the garage on the
                       adjacent property to the east.
SDAB-D-07-164                        3                                     August       3,
2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                7.    There is approximately 10 feet between the garage and the east
                      property line.
                8.    There is a six-foot high fence on the west property line.
                9.    There is a garage in the rear of the property to the west, sited
                      approximately 21 feet from the east property line.
                10.   A petition of support signed by eight neighbouring property
                      owners, seven of whom reside within the 60 metre notification
                      radius, including the immediately adjacent property owners to
                      the east and west was filed by the Appellant.
                11.   Many of the neighbours in the 60 metre notification radius could
                      not be contacted because they were away on summer vacation.
                12.   The proposed window on the second storey of the north elevation
                      will align with or be slightly higher than the ridge of the roof line
                      of the detached garage located north of the subject site.
                13.   He acknowledged that the proposed rear window on the second
                      storey of the garage would look towards the second floor of the
                      residence immediately north of the subject site.
                14.   He would be agreeable to a condition that the proposed second
                      storey window on the north elevation be opaque to protect the
                      privacy of the property to the north.
                15.   They would prefer not to remove the rear window on the north
                      elevation.
                16.   The ridge line of the proposed garage is only one inch, more or
                      less, higher than that of another existing garage identified in the
                      photograph labelled SDAB-D-07-164c.
                17.   The windows on the proposed second storey were included to
                      provide a cross breeze.
                18.   The Community League was not consulted.
                19.   The proposed second storey free space will only be used for
                      working at cataloguing his mother’s estate and storage.
                20.   Stairwell access to the loft shall be inside the garage.

                Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, who reside at 9661 – 85 Avenue, immediately
                north of the subject site, appeared in opposition and provided the
                following information:

                1.    The foundation for the garage has already been installed and they
                      questioned whether the required 5 foot setback had been
                      measured from the rear property line or from the lane.
                2.    It was their opinion that the garage was uncharacteristic of the
                      area because of the size.
SDAB-D-07-164                        4                                  August       3,
2007

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
                 3.        The proposed garage would give a claustrophobic feel to the
                           neighbourhood.
                 4.        The proposed development would decrease property values.
                 5.        They would like the property owner to revise his plans to
                           construct a larger single storey detached garage. Extra storage
                           space could be provided by making the garage longer or wider or
                           both.

                 In response to questions, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson provided the following
                 information:

                      1.      They did not have any professional support for their statement
                              that the proposed structure would decrease property values in
                              the neighbourhood
                      2.      It was their opinion that the proposed garage was not
                              proportionate in size with other garages in the
                              neighbourhood.
                      3.      They did concede that there are other larger garages existing
                              on the block but they but the proposed garage will be the
                              highest in the area.
                      4.      They will be able to see the garage from the second storey of
                              their house but not from their rear yard.
                      5.      They complied will all of the development regulations when
                              they built their house and it was their opinion that other
                              property owners should also develop within the City’s zoning
                              bylaw requirements.

                 In rebuttal, Mr Reith stated that there are massive houses being built in
                 the neighbourhood and that the house adjacent to him is 2 ½ to 3 storeys
                 high with balconies that overlook his rear yard. His house and his lot are
                 very small and it was his opinion that the proposed garage would
                 improve property values in the area. The garage footings were installed
                 because the trades people were available. He advised that if his appeal is
                 denied he will construct a garage that complies with the requirements of
                 the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.

DECISION:

                 that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT APPROVED and
                 the excess of 0.11 metres in maximum allowable Height and one storey
                 for an Accessory Building or Structure and the excess of .07 metres in
                 the allowable height of the roof ridge line be permitted subject to the
                 following conditions:

SDAB-D-07-164                           5                                   August        3,
2007

DECISION: (CONTINUED):
                 1.     the approval is based on the revised plans submitted by the
                        Appellant and reviewed by the Board this date;
                 2.     that the rear window on the north elevation be eliminated;
                 3.     that the rear yard setback be a minimum of 1.2 metres from the
                        rear property line;
                 4.     that the west side yard setback be a minimum of 0.9 metres;
                 5.     that only gas and electricity services be provided to the garage;
                 6.     there shall be no habitable space developed in the garage;
                 7.     that no exterior access or stairway to the proposed second storey
                        of the garage be provided;
                 8.     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);
                 9.     eavestroughing be installed and drainage to take place entirely on
                        subject property;
                 10.    exterior finish of the garage to be made compatible with that of
                        the existing principal dwelling; and
                 11.    the Applicant install a remote control garage door opener;
                 12.    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.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The proposed Detached Garage is accessory to a Permitted Use in
                        the RF2 Zone.
                 2.     A petition of support was submitted containing the signatures of
                        eight property owners, seven of whom reside within the 60 metre
                        notification radius, including the most affected property owners.
                 3.     The maximum site coverage for an Accessory Building or
                        Structure and the total maximum Site Coverage permitted by the
                        Edmonton Zoning Bylaw are not exceeded by this development.
                 4.     The condition requiring the removal of the window on the north
                        elevation protects the privacy of the neighbour to the north.
                 5.     For all of the above noted reasons, the proposed development
                        would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
                        neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use,
                        enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-07-164                              6                                  August        3,
2007

                   IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

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:
SDAB-D-07-164                               7                                    August        3,
2007


              (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.

NOTE:
        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-07-164                            8                                  August 3, 2007


      (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. W. Pidruchney, Presiding Officer
                                                SUBDIVISION     AND        DEVELOPMENT
                                                APPEAL BOARD

cc:   Mr. Reith
      Mr. & Mrs. Anderson
                     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: August 3, 2007
                                                           APPLICATION NO: 67662298-001
12145 – 96 Street                                          FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-165
EDMONTON, AB T5G 1V9

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 20, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Demolish an existing house and construct a Single Detached House with a covered entryway
with basement development

on Lot 7, Block 23, Plan 4833AH, located at 12148 – 96 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 19, 2007. The decision of the
Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to demolish an existing house and construct a
                     Single Detached House with a covered entryway with basement
                     development located at 12148 – 96 Street. The subject site is zoned RF3
                     Low Density Development Zone and is located in the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is based on an excess in maximum
                     allowable total site coverage, an excess in allowable site coverage for a
                     principal building and a deficiency in the minimum Side Yard
                     requirements.

                     The Board heard from Mr. Ernesto Roppo, the Appellant, who was
                     assisted in his presentation by Ms. Nadia Coco, Board Officer, who
                     helped clarify his statements and responses for the Board by
                     interpretation from Italian into the English language.

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

                     1.     He was prepared to reduce the width of the house to 24 feet, 6
                            inches resulting in a square footage of 108.5 square metres,
                            which
SDAB-D-07-165                        2                                  August        3,
2007

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                       would then meet the 1.2 metres Side Yard requirement.
                2.     He would like to build a new house to improve the
                       neighbourhood and the City.
                3.     He constructed a similar house in this neighbourhood located at
                       12145 – 96 Street in 1974.
                4.     The existing garage was approved with a variance in site
                       coverage in 1982.
                5.     Mr. Roppo submitted a petition signed by 15 neighbouring
                       property owners, 12 within the 60 metre notification radius and
                       3 outside.

                Mr. Roppo provided the following information in response to questions:

                1.     His daughter resides at 12150 – 96 Street, immediately south of
                       the subject site.
                2.     His daughter’s house is wider than the house that he is proposing
                       but the frontage of both houses will be aligned.
                3.     The house located at 12146 – 96 Street is setback further from
                       the front property line.
                4.     There are three vacant commercial lots immediately west and at
                       the rear of the subject site.
                5.     Mr. Roppo plans to live in the new house when it is built.
                6.     He wants to build a larger house to accommodate his
                       grandchildren who live next door and come to play in his home.
                7.     He conceded that the house will be the largest on the block but
                       reducing the square footage of the proposed house will make the
                       bedrooms too small.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 3.12 square metres in the maximum allowable Site
                Coverage for a Principal Building and the excess of 13.01 square metres
                in maximum allowable total Site Coverage be permitted subject to the
                following conditions:

                1.     that the Side Yard setback be a minimum of 1.2 metres on both
                       the north and south sides;
                2.     that the width of the house shall be no more than 24 feet, 6
                       inches wide, resulting in a building pocket of 108.85 square
                       metres.
SDAB-D-07-165                            3                                   August        3,
2007


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      Single Detached Housing is a Permitted Use in the RF3 Zone.
                   2.      The proposed house is not uncharacteristic of other existing
                           houses on the block and will have a similar front yard setback.
                   3.      There are three vacant lots, zoned CNC, existing across the lane
                           from the subject site, which will minimize the impact of the
                           variances being granted on neighbouring property owners.
                   4.      The Appellant submitted a petition of support signed by 15
                           neighbouring property owners.
                   5.      There were no letters of objection received and no one appeared
                           in opposition to the proposed development.
                   6.      For all of the above noted reasons, the proposed development
                           would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
                           neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use,
                           enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”

                     IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

4.   Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
     DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
     DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, if the permit
     holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
     development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed.
SDAB-D-07-165                             4                                    August        3,
2007


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            (a)    direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
                   the appeal.
            (b)    specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
                   appealed, and
            (c)    make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                   appropriate.
SDAB-D-07-165                               5                                    August        3,
2007


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

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

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

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




                                                   Mr. W. Pidruchney, 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: August 3, 2007
11226 – 75 Avenue                                         APPLICATION NO: 68508208-001
EDMONTON, AB T6G OH3                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-166

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 26, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Operate a Major Home Based Business (Alberta Adapt Abilities Association, program
development for special needs children)

on Lot 80, Block 8, Plan 6151KS, located at 8721 – 163 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 19, 2007. The decision of the
Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to operate a Major Home Based Business (Alberta
                     Adapt Abilities Association, program development for special needs
                     children) located at 8721 – 163 Street. The subject site is zoned RF1
                     Single Detached Residential Zone and is within the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is based on the proposed
                     development not qualifying as a Major Home Based Business.

                     The Board notes that there were no letters of objection or support on file.

                     Ms. Hordal, the Appellant submitted a detailed written presentation, a
                     copy of which is on file and made the following points in support of her
                     appeal:

                     1. Alberta AdaptAbilities Association wants to use this house to provide
                        respite care for parents of children with disabilities as well as social
                        networking and programs for special needs children.
SDAB-D-07-166                         2                                     August       3,
2007

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                2. Alberta AdaptAbilities offers the following services: Respite Centres,
                    Out of School Care, Teen Nights and Specialized Programs for
                    disabled children.
                3. Respite Care is available 7 days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
                4. Friday evening is Teen Night. Teens plan a variety of recreational
                    activities with the goal of improving decision making skills,
                    independence and increased participation.
                5. Alberta AdaptAbilities would like to expand the Teen program to
                    include Tuesday, Thursday and Friday evenings because it has been
                    so successful.
                6. Alberta AdaptAbilities provides services for children and youth up to
                    eighteen years of age. An exception is occasionally made to provide
                    service to individuals up to age 21 but only if they are still attending
                    school.
                7. There are currently 100 families on a waiting list for respite service.
                8. Parents currently using the services are very supportive.
                9. This is a one of a kind program because the services are offered in a
                    home environment.
                10. Many of the neighbours in Meadowlark, specifically in the vicinity of
                    the subject property have been contacted regarding the proposal.
                    She was able to meet 14 residents of the 25 in the immediate vicinity.
                    The owner of the property located at 8715 – 163 Street expressed
                    concerns about behavioural problems and the possibility of
                    vandalism. An immediately adjacent neighbour who resides at 8723
                    – 163 Street expressed concerns about reduced property values and
                    the operation of a group home. Ms. Hordal indicated that she spoke
                    to their neighbour recently to discuss some of his concerns.
                11. Noise will not be a problem.
                12. Four parking spaces are available, two inside the garage and two on
                    the driveway behind the garage.
                13. The site was specifically chosen because it is located on a service road
                    which provides a safe drop-off and pick-up zone for children.
                14. Alberta AdaptAbilities has been operating a house in the McKernan
                    neighbourhood without complaint from any of the neighbouring
                    property owners.
                15. This is a service and not a business.
                16. Alberta AdaptAbilities is a non-profit association.
                17. The Major Home Based Business will not change the residential
                    nature of the house or the neighbourhood.
SDAB-D-07-166                        3                                   August 3, 2007

SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                Ms. Hordal provided the following information in response to questions:

                1.     Michelle and Shane Hordal have purchased this house to operate
                       the AdaptAbilities program.
                2.     The house will be the principal residence for at least one staff
                       member of Alberta AdaptAbilities Association.
                3.     There would be no traffic or parking problems related to the
                       service.
                4.     A commercial property does not meet the needs of the Association
                       because there are usually no playgrounds or schools located close
                       by.
                5.     Mayfield and Elmwood Schools are supportive of these types of
                       programs.
                6.     The home environment enhances the ability of the children to
                       develop abilities, achieve success and create a positive self-image
                       while supporting the vision of the Association which is growth,
                       success and a sense of belonging of its clients.
                7.     A DVD filmed by CTV Television was shown to the Board.
                8.     The summer camp program is currently operating at Allendale
                       and McKernan Schools.
                9.     The operation provides training for University students interested
                       in working with special needs children.
                10.    The requirement for one on one staffing is occasionally needed
                       but the staff to child ratio is generally 1 to 3.
                11.    The McKernan house provides services for children between 2
                       p.m. and 6 p.m. with exceptions made on non school days, and to
                       accommodate the Teen programs which run to 9 p.m. and
                       Saturday and Sunday evenings until 6 p.m.
                12.    Ms. Hordal made the development application on behalf of
                       Alberta AdaptAbilities Association which will operate the Major
                       Home Based Business.
                13.    The administrative office part of the business is located at the
                       McKernan residence.
                14.    She advised that she could comply with all of the Bylaw
                       requirements for a Major Home Based Business except Section
                       75.4 which only allows two non-resident employees.
                15.    The home is 1,037 square feet in size and both the main floor and
                       the basement will be used in providing this service.
SDAB-D-07-166                          4                                   August        3,
2007


DECISION:

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

                1.     that the development is approved for a period of three years and is
                       valid until August 10, 2010;
                2.     that the Major Home Based Business provide respite programs and
                       services for special needs children and youth and their parents to a
                       maximum of 6 children at any one time;
                3.     that an employee of Alberta AdaptAbilities Association shall be a
                       full time resident on this site;
                4.     that the number of non-resident employees or business partners
                       working on-site shall not exceed four at any one time;
                5.     there shall be no exterior display or advertisement other than an
                       identification plaque or Sign a maximum of 8 inches by 12 inches
                       in size located on the Dwelling;
                6.     there shall be no mechanical or electrical equipment used that
                       creates external noise, or visible and audible interference with
                       home electronics equipment in adjacent Dwellings;
                7.     the Major Home Based Business shall not generate pedestrian or
                       vehicular traffic, or parking, in excess of that which is
                       characteristic of the Zone in which it is located;
                8.     there shall be no outdoor business activity, or outdoor storage of
                       material or equipment associated with the business. Indoor storage
                       related to the business activity shall be allowed in either the
                       Dwelling or Accessory buildings;
                9.     the Major Home Based Business shall not change the principal
                       character or external appearance of the Dwelling or Accessory
                       buildings.

                The Applicant should note that the Major Home Based Business (Alberta
                AdaptAbilities Association, program development for special needs
                children) 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-07-166                            5                                   August        3,
2007

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      Based on the evidence provided by the Appellant that a staff
                           member of Alberta AdaptAbilities Association will be a full time
                           resident in the principal dwelling and that the operation of the
                           Major Home Based Business will be secondary to the residential
                           use, the proposed development does fit the definition of a Major
                           Home Based Business.
                   2.      A Major Home Based Business is a Discretionary Use in the RF1
                           Zone.
                   3.      The residential character of the principal dwelling or accessory
                           buildings will not change.
                   4.      There were no letters of objection received and no one appeared
                           in opposition to the proposed development.
                   5.      The nature of the Major Home Based Business occasionally
                           requires the provision of one to one supervision and a variance
                           has therefore been granted in the maximum number of non-
                           resident employees allowed to accommodate this requirement.
                   6.      Approving the permit for a period of three years will provide a
                           reasonable time for the neighbours to assess the impact of the
                           Major Home Based Business upon the neighbourhood.
                   7.      For all of the above noted reasons, the proposed development
                           would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
                           neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use,
                           enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”

                     IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

     a)     any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been
            fulfilled.
SDAB-D-07-166                             6                                   August 3, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (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
SDAB-D-07-166                                 7                                    August 3, 2007

               (c)     make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                       appropriate.

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

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

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

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




                                                     Mr. W. Pidruchney, Presiding Officer
                                                     SUBDIVISION     AND        DEVELOPMENT
                                                     APPEAL BOARD

cc:     Scott Parker
                     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: August 3, 2007
                                                           APPLICATION NO: 67463063-001
10723 – 24 Avenue                                          FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-167
EDMONTON, AB T6J 5P9

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 21, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Develop a Secondary Suite (basement suite)

on Lot 29, Block 53, Plan RN43A, located at 11214 – 91 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 19, 2007. The decision of the
Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to approve, with a variance, an application to develop a Secondary Suite
                     (basement suite) located at 11214 – 91 Street. The subject site is zoned
                     RF3 Low Density Development Zone and is within the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The approval was appealed by an adjacent
                     property owner.

                     The Board notes that there were no letters of support or objection on file.

                     The Board heard from Ms. Wright, the Appellant who resides at 11216 –
                     91 Street.

                     She submitted a petition signed by eleven neighbours objecting to this
                     proposed development and a number of photographs of the subject
                     property.
SDAB-D-07-167                        2                                    August       3,
2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                Ms. Wright made the following points in support of her appeal:

                1.     The proposed development does not meet the minimum site area
                       requirements for the development of a secondary suite in the RF3
                       Zone.
                2.     There is insufficient parking on site to accommodate a secondary
                       suite.
                3.     The development permit for a Single Detached House on this site
                       approved on November 3, 2006 included a condition that the
                       permit did not provide approval for basement development and
                       any future basement development shall not be used as an
                       additional dwelling unit.
                4.     A second development permit for a Detached Garage (6.1 metres
                       by 6.1 metres) was approved on November 3, 2006 and it was
                       her opinion that a garage this large will not leave enough room
                       on the lot to provide the additional parking space required for the
                       proposed secondary suite.
                5.     All of the lots in the neighbourhood are very small,
                       approximately 360 square metres in size.
                6.     The variance of 92.1 square metres being granted in the
                       minimum site area requirement is excessive. It was her opinion
                       that the subject lot is too small to accommodate the proposed
                       secondary suite.
                7.     The existing doorway entrance at the side of the dwelling which
                       leads to the secondary suite does not comply with the minimum
                       separation distance requirements under the Edmonton Zoning
                       Bylaw.
                8.     Access by a door at the side of the dwelling to the secondary suite
                       will impact her privacy.
                9.     The rear cantilever on the north side of the house is 22.5 inches
                       from her property line.
                10.    The front cantilever on the north side of the house is 18.5 inches
                       from her property line.
                11.    One cantilevered projection is 1.5 metres long and the other one
                       is 2.1 metres long.
                12.    The proposed access to the secondary suite on the north side of
                       the house will adversely affect her privacy and the enjoyment of
                       her deck.
                13.    She conceded that the development of this house will improve the
                       neighbourhood but allowing the secondary suite increases the
                       intensity of use.
SDAB-D-07-167                          3                                   August       3,
2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                14.    A petition of opposition containing 11 signatures, representing
                       six properties within the 60-metre notification radius was
                       submitted. One additional property owner indicated verbal
                       opposition to this development.
                15.    The developer does not plan to reside in the house and she has
                       concerns about the operation of the secondary suite and the
                       impact on her property.

                Ms. Wright provided the following information in response to questions:

                1.     The access door to the proposed secondary suite is located
                       between the two cantilevered projections on the north side of the
                       house.
                2.     The access door is approximately 1 to 2 feet below the bottom of
                       the cantilevers.
                3.     The photographs do not indicate the final grade of the property.
                4.     The approved garage has not yet been constructed.


                The Board then heard from Mr. Chopra, the Respondent, and the owner
                of Build To Last Inc. He advised that he owns the subject site. Mr. Modi,
                the Project Manager for Build to Last Inc. was also in attendance.

                Mr. Chopra provided the following information:

                1.     The City approved a development permit for a Secondary Suite at
                       11915 -96 Street on a similar sized lot.
                2.     He provided the Board with a copy of the approved development
                       permit for the site at 11915 – 96 Street.
                3.     The Development Officer approved the permit, for the site under
                       appeal, with a variance to allow a Site Area of 367.88 square
                       metres instead of the required 460 square metres.
                4.     A Surveyor’s plot plan was submitted indicating that the distance
                       between the cantilevers and the adjacent fence to the north is 2
                       feet, 6 inches.
                5.     He provided the Board with supporting media documentation
                       regarding the shortage of housing and the need for the
                       development of secondary suites in existing single detached
                       houses.
                6.     It was his opinion that the access door on the north side of the
                       house will minimally impact the Appellant.

SDAB-D-07-167                        4                                   August        3,
2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):

                Mr. Chopra provided the following information in response to questions:
                 1.      It was Mr. Chopra’s opinion that the condition regarding future
                         basement development placed on the original permit for the
                         house was a standard condition and did not preclude him from
                         applying for a separate permit to develop the basement.
                 2.      He acknowledged that the information provided to the Board
                         regarding the siting of the single detached house on the lot was
                         based on the Surveyor’s plot plan and not a Real Property Report.
                 3.      He could not confirm the location of the single detached house
                         and that there is a possibility that the house may be sited slightly
                         different from what was shown on the plot plan.
                 4.      The side door provides access to the proposed secondary suite via
                         a common landing with steps up to the main floor and steps
                         down into the secondary suite.
                 5.      There is no door at the bottom of the stairs into the secondary
                         suite, making the side access door the only access into the
                         secondary suite.

                 In rebuttal, Ms. Wright indicated that she used her Real Property Report
                 to determine the location of the fence and then measured from her
                 property line to the existing house.


DECISION:

                 that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                1.      Section 140.4(1) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states that the
                        minimum Site Area shall be 360 square metres for each Single
                        Detached Dwelling and Section 140.4(1)(e) states that the
                        minimum Site Area shall be 100 square metres for each Secondary
                        Suite.
                2.      The minimum site area required for the proposed development is
                        460 square metres and the subject lot is only 367.88 metres in size,
                        resulting in a 92.12 square metres deficiency.
SDAB-D-07-167                        5                                   August        3,
2007


REASONS FOR DECISION (CONTINUED):

                3.   Section 140.4(11) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states where
                     Semi-detached Housing, Duplex Housing and Secondary Suites are
                     allowed in this Zone, a maximum of two Dwellings per lot shall be
                     allowed. Where Single Detached Housing is developed in this
                     Zone, a maximum of one Dwelling per lot shall be allowed.
                4.   A Single Detached House with a secondary suite is considered to be
                     two dwelling units.
                5.   The Board notes Section 7.2(6) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
                     which states that “Secondary Suite means development consisting
                     of a self-contained Dwelling located in a structure in which the
                     principal use is Single Detached Housing. A Secondary Suite has
                     cooking, food preparation, sleeping and bathing facilities which are
                     separate from those of the principal Dwelling within the structure.
                     For the purpose of this clause, “cooking facilities” includes any
                     stove, hotplate, oven, microwave oven, toaster oven or electric
                     griddle, as well as any wiring or piping containing the energy or
                     power source for such facilities. A Secondary Suite also has an
                     entrance separate from the entrance to the principal Dwelling,
                     either from a common indoor landing or directly from the exterior
                     of the structure”.
                6.   The submitted plans show that the proposed door on the north side
                     of the house accesses a common landing with stairs leading to the
                     main floor and stairs down into the proposed secondary suite.
                     However there is no door separating the proposed secondary suite
                     from the common landing.
                7.   There is significant opposition from neighbouring property owners.
                8.   Section 140.4.2.a requires that the minimum site width shall be
                     12.0 metres for each single detached dwelling, with or without a
                     secondary suite. The plot plans provided indicate that the site
                     width is 10.058 metres, so the site width is deficient by 1.942
                     metres.
                9.   Section 54.2 Schedule 1 – Vehicle Parking Requirement indicates
                     that the Respondent needs one parking space per two sleeping units
                     for a secondary suite in addition to the parking requirements for
                     the primary dwelling. The plans show that there are two bedrooms
                     in the proposed Secondary Suite. The Secondary Suite therefore
                     requires one parking space. The primary dwelling requires two
                     parking spaces. Accordingly, a total of three parking spaces would
                     be required for the proposed development. The plans show there
                     are two parking spaces in the garage and that the garage is located
                     3.0 metres from the rear property line.

SDAB-D-07-167                        6                                   August        3,
2007
REASONS FOR DECISION (CONTINUED):

                          There are no parking spaces available on the driveway at the rear
                          of the garage because a parking space needs to be at least 5.5
                          metres in length. The Respondent, therefore, has a total of two
                          parking spaces on site. The site is therefore deficient one parking
                          space for the proposed development.
                   8.     For all of the above noted reasons, the Board was unable to find
                          that 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, 5th
      Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

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

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

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-07-167                           7                                 August        3,
2007

      (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-07-167                              8                                  August        3,
2007


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

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




                                                  Mr. W. Pidruchney, Presiding Officer
                                                  SUBDIVISION     AND        DEVELOPMENT
                                                  APPEAL BOARD

cc:     Vincent Meseck and Susan Wright

								
To top