Home Based Business Evict

Document Sample
Home Based Business Evict Powered By Docstoc
					                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: 780-496-6079
0                                                          Fax: 780-496-8175



                                                   DATE: July 31, 2009
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 86877016-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-126

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD


This appeal dated June 22, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Operate a Major Home Based Business (Lymph Therapist)

on Lot 6, Block 10, Plan 6689NY, located at 13803 – 90 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 16, 2009. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

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

                     The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to approve, subject to conditions, an application to operate a Major Home
                     Based Business (Lymph Therapist), located at 13803 – 90 Street NW. The
                     subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone and is located
                     within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The approved development
                     permit was appealed by an adjacent property owner.

                     The Board notes that submissions were received from both the Appellant
                     and the Respondent prior to the hearing. Two letters were received in
                     opposition to the proposed development and no letters were received in
                     support of the proposed development.

                     The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Richardson, who made the
                     following points:
SDAB-D-09-126                         2                             July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                1. His concerns were regarding parking, health problems, waste disposal
                   and suitability of the site for the business.
                2. He referenced the website details submitted with the appeal which
                   referred to specific treatments being offered by Ms. Hope.
                3. He submitted two documents dated 1999 and 2005, indicating that the
                   equipment used for the business is not approved through the
                   regulations applicable to Australia.
                4. He spoke to a representative from EPCOR regarding the prevention of
                   back flow from the sewer and the equipment being monitored. The
                   spokesperson for EPCOR indicated that they will not monitor
                   equipment such as this used in a residential area.
                5. Evidence submitted by Ms. Hope suggested that regulations for this
                   type of equipment were approved but in fact were not adopted at this
                   time.
                6. He provided the Board with further evidence suggesting that the FDA
                   and Health Canada do not approve this type of machines or prevention
                   devices as outlined in his earlier submission.

                The Board then heard from the Respondent, Ms. Hope, who made the
                following points:

                1. She clarified that during her application for the development permit
                   she noted the type of work she does and the City limited the
                   description for Lymph Therapy but she also does colon therapy.
                2. She has only one vehicle but has a double garage with a driveway on a
                   corner lot and two streets on which to park.
                3. Three cars can be parked on the street west of her house and at the
                   same time another three or four cars can be parked on the street south
                   of her house.
                4. She noted that her clients would be asked to park on her driveway and
                   she has only one client at the residence at any one time.
                5. She visited numerous neighbours and has their support for her
                   application. She submitted a petition with 10 signatures in support of
                   the proposed development.
                6. There will be no more than five clients per day at the subject property
                   and she does not foresee the number of clients increasing in the future.
                7. The business operates five days per week with the occasional Saturday
                   and the hours of operation will be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
                8. In addressing concerns raised by Mr. Richardson, she indicated that
                   there are guidelines with respect to the patients she treats. Certain
                   patients only receive one type of therapy.
SDAB-D-09-126                          3                             July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                9. She submitted information from the Health Canada website indicating
                    her equipment is Medical Class 2 Certified.
                10. A certified plumber will install a direct line into the sewage system for
                    the disposal of waste which will meet all City requirements. Separate
                    lines will provide water to the machine.
                11. With regards to sewer problems on the subject site, she indicated that a
                    tree was removed by the previous owner due to clean up in the fall and
                    not because of sewage problems.
                12. Two machines will be used for the operation of the business; one for
                    colon therapy and one for lymph therapy treatment.
                13. The machines do not make any noise and they are both approved by
                    the FDA. She was certain that the colon machine was certified by
                    Health Canada but not certain of the lymph machine.
                14. The machine’s operation manual indicates that the equipment has an
                    internal back flow valve which will prevent any back flow from the
                    sewer.
                15. She was prepared to submit a DVD showing the therapy procedures,
                    however, the Board indicated that was not necessary as the Board
                    would make its decision based on planning issues. Mr. Richardson
                    also indicated no need to view the DVD.
                16. The only materials used for the business that will be disposed of will
                    be plastic gloves and padding used with the machine.
                17. She is the only employee and is currently operating the business at
                    another location but wants to move from that site to her home due to
                    noise in that area.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Garvey who has been a resident in the
                area for 30 years and lives a few doors down from Ms. Hope. He
                indicated that, in his opinion, there is no traffic or parking problem in the
                area. The majority of the residents in the neighbourhood are seniors,
                himself included, and they are interested in the services that Ms. Hope will
                be providing.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Richardson, made the following points:

                1. One signature on the petition in support of the business later indicated
                   an opposition to the business.
                2. He provided the Board with a photograph showing a clothes line used
                   for the purpose of drying some of the materials that is used for the
                   business.
SDAB-D-09-126                         4                              July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                Ms. Hope clarified that the photograph did not show a cover drying on a
                clothes line, but a gazebo cover that was left by the previous owner and
                which she later removed.

                Mr. Richardson in final rebuttal had nothing further to add.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the Development
                Authority CONFIRMED.           The Development Authority’s decision
                contained the following conditions:

                1. This Development Permit may be revoked or invalidated, at any time,
                   if the Major Home Based Business as stated in the Permit Details, or if
                   the character or appearance of the Dwelling or Accessory Building,
                   changes. This includes mechanical or electrical equipment used which
                   creates external noise or interference with home electronic equipment
                   in adjacent Dwellings. (Reference Section 23.5).
                2. There shall be no exterior display or advertisement other than an
                   identification plaque or sign a maximum of 20 centimetres (8 inches)
                   by 30.5 centimetres (12 inches) in size located on the dwelling.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1. A Major Home Based Business is Discretionary Use in the RF1 Single
                   Detached Residential Zone.
                2. The Board is satisfied that no bio-hazardous materials will be
                   generated and other waste materials generated as a result of this
                   business will be disposed of properly.
                3. With only one customer visit at one time, parking will not be an issue
                   as there is sufficient off street parking and there is room for two
                   vehicles to park on the garage pad.
                4. The hours of operation and the number of customer visits per day
                   will not have a negative impact on the neighbourhood.
                5. The majority of the neighbourhood appears to support the business,
                   including one who was in attendance at the hearing.
                6. Based on the above, the proposed development will not unduly
                   interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                   interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                   parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-09-126                         5                           July 31, 2009
           IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

2.    When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
      and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
      approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.

3.    A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
      date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
      permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
      development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
      information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

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

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

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

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



                                                    Ms. A. VandenBorn, Presiding Officer
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD

cc:
                      Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                      Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                            1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                            Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                            Telephone: 780-496-6079
0                                                           Fax: 780-496-8175



                                                    DATE: July 31, 2009
                                                    APPLICATION NO: 86924671-001
                                                    FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-127



          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD


This appeal dated June 17, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Operate a Major Alcohol Sales Use and to construct interior alterations (Argyll Liquor Village)

on Lot 5A, Block 3, Plan 7520341, located at 8303 - Argyll Road NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 16, 2009. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

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

                      The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                      to refuse an application to operate a Major Alcohol Sales Use and to
                      construct interior alterations (Argyll Liquor Village), located at 8303 -
                      Argyll Road. The subject site is zoned IB Industrial Business Zone. The
                      proposed development is refused as it is located within 100 metres of a
                      Site being actively used for a public park.

                      The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to
                      the proposed development.

                      The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Happy, representing 1265496
                      AB Ltd. (Argyll Liquor Village), who made the following points:
SDAB-D-09-127                         2                              July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                1. He provided the Board with a petition with 29 signatures and a letter
                   from the Argyll Community League in support of the proposed
                   development and indicated that there was only one person in
                   opposition to the proposed development. No addresses were included
                   with the signatures. The President of the Community League
                   canvassed the neighbourhood together with Mr. Happy.
                2. He referred to Pages 11 and 12 of the Agenda and specifically to the
                   comments by Ms. Agar, City of Edmonton Planner. She commented
                   that the property zoned “A” at the intersection of 83 Street and Argyll
                   Road was not formally used for recreational purposes although it
                   appears that there is a trail on the property. He agreed with this
                   statement that the property zoned “A” was an inactive park and
                   therefore should not be used when determining the separation distance
                   for this application.
                3. He referenced the letter from the Argyll Community League, and
                   referred to Paragraph 5 that indicates the Community League is
                   satisfied that this application will have no negative impact on the small
                   area zoned “A” at the southeast end of Argyll Park. This particular
                   portion of the park is not used for recreation and represents no issues
                   to residents who walk or cycle on the path.
                4. The trail is situated at the north end of the property zoned “A” and is
                   used by people to access the bus stop.
                5. He is prepared to move his business from 8303 Argyll Road to the bay
                   at 8305 Argyll Road in order to comply with the separation
                   requirements of the Bylaw. The Presiding Officer indicated that the
                   separation distance was measured to the nearest property line and not
                   to the location of the proposed development within that property.
                6. He has a lease agreement that is signed but not dated, which indicates
                   his commitment to lease the property pending the decision of the
                   Board when at such time the contract will be finalized.

                In response to questions from the Board as to whether the property zoned
                “A” is part of the River Valley, Mr. Happy indicated that it was not, as the
                River is four kilometres to the north. It was his submission that the park
                has not been used as an active park.

                The Board Officer provided an overhead map of the North Saskatchewan
                River Valley and Ravine System Protection Overlay which determined
                that the property zoned “A” as part of this Overlay.
SDAB-D-09-127                         3                              July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                The Board referenced the aerial photograph to indicate the location of the
                parks under discussion. The Board questioned the location of the
                Millcreek Ravine sign and it was determined it was located on the
                northwest corner intersection of 83 Street and Argyll Road.

                Mr. Happy questioned whether or not the property zoned “A” was
                considered part of an active park and further stated that his liquor store
                would not have a negative impact on that park.

                Mr. Happy indicated that there is a night club on the property located
                northeast of the proposed development which is zoned CNC
                Neighbourhood Convenience Commercial Zone.

                He indicated that there are no liquor stores along 63 Avenue from 99
                Street to 75 Street and that he would be providing a particular service with
                his store at this location.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the deficiency of 49.2 metres in the required distance between the subject
                site and an actively used public park be permitted subject to the following
                conditions:

                1. The development shall comply to the General Performance Standards
                   for the Industrial Business (IB) in accordance to Section 57 of the
                   Edmonton Zoning Bylaw 12800.
                2. No parking, loading, storage, trash collection, outdoor service or
                   display area shall be permitted within a required Yard. Reference
                   Section 400.4(4).
                3. Any outdoor lighting for any development shall be located and
                   arranged so that no direct rays of light are directed at any adjoining
                   properties, or interfere with the effectiveness of any traffic control
                   devices. Reference Section 51.
                4. Exterior lighting should be in accordance with the minimum safety
                   standards prescribed by the Illuminating Engineers Society. Reference
                   Section 85(5)(b).
                5. Any landscaping around the facilities be low-growing shrubs or
                   deciduous trees with a high canopy at maturity and that all foliage be
                   kept trimmed back to prevent loss of natural surveillance. Reference
                   Section 85(5)(c).
SDAB-D-09-127                         4                              July 31, 2009

DECISION CONTINUED:

                6. No customer parking is in behind a facility and that all parking areas in
                    front of the building be well-lighted. Reference Section 85(5)(d).
                7. Customer access to the store is limited to a store front that is visible
                    from the street, shopping centre parking lot or a mall access that
                    allows visibility from the interior. Reference Section 85(5)(e).
                8. Bicycle parking (5 spaces) shall be provided in accordance to Section
                    54.3 and to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.
                9. All required parking and loading facilities shall only be used for the
                    purpose of accommodating the vehicles of clients, customers,
                    employees, members, residents or visitors in connection with the
                    building or Use for which the parking and loading facilities are
                    provided, and the parking and loading facilities shall not be used for
                    driveways, access or egress, commercial repair work, display, sale or
                    storage of goods of any kind. Reference Section 54.1(1)(c).
                10. Parking spaces for the disabled shall be provided in accordance with
                    the Alberta Building Code in effect at the time of the Development
                    Permit application and be identified as parking spaces for the disabled
                    through the use of appropriate signage, in accordance with Provincial
                    standards. Reference Section 54.1(3)

                NOTES:

                Signs require separate Development Applications.

                A Building Permit may be required for any construction or change in use
                of a building. For a building permit, and prior to the Plans Examination
                review, you require construction drawings and the payment of fees.
                Please contact our Customer Information Centre at 780-496-3100 for
                further information.

                An approved Development Permit means that the proposed development
                has been reviewed against the provisions of this Bylaw. It does not
                remove obligations to conform with other legislation, bylaws or land title
                instruments such as the Municipal Government Act, the Edmonton
                Building Permit Bylaw or any caveats, covenants or easements that might
                be attached to the Site. Reference Section 5.2.

                The City of Edmonton does not conduct independent environmental
                checks of land within the City. If you are concerned about the suitability
                of this property for any purpose, you should conduct your own tests and
                reviews. The City of Edmonton, in issuing this Development Permit,
                makes no representations and offers no warranties as to the suitability of
SDAB-D-09-127                            5                             July 31, 2009

DECISION CONTINUED:

                   the property for any purpose or as to the presence or absence of any
                   environmental contaminant on the property.

                   This is a Petroleum Tank Management Association of Alberta (PTMAA)
                   tank registration site. This warning does not affect any development or
                   building permit issuance. For further information contact Garth Clyburn
                   at 496-6209 or Ed Egyedy at 496-6039. No expiry date.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.   The proposed development is a Permitted Use in the IB Industrial
                        Business Zone.
                   2.   The park area zoned “A” located 50.8 metres from the proposed
                        development is in fact an active recreation area in the River Valley.
                   3.   Formal recreational activities on the park area zoned “A” are
                        concentrated further north and there are no formal activities on the
                        portion of property immediate north of the proposed development,
                        other than a walkway used by individuals to access the bus stop.
                   4.   The proposed liquor store location is separated from the site zoned
                        “A” by a busy arterial roadway which will mitigate a negative effect
                        on neighbouring properties.
                   5.   Based on the above reasons the proposed development will not unduly
                        interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                        interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                        parcels of land.”



          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

2.   When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
     and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
     approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.


SDAB-D-09-127                            6                             July 31, 2009
3.    A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
      date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
      permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
      development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
      information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

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

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

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

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




                                                    Ms. A. VandenBorn, Presiding Officer
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD


cc:
                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: 780-496-6079
0                                                          Fax: 780-496-8175



                                                   DATE: July 31, 2009
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 85681407-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-128



          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD


This appeal dated June 19, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Construct a 16-Dwelling Stacked Row Housing project

on Lots 81 and 82, Block 1, Plan RN63, located at 8108 – 119 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 16, 2009. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

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

                     The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
                     to approve, with variances, subject to conditions, an application to
                     construct a 16-Dwelling Stacked Row Housing project, located at 8108 –
                     119 Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment
                     Zone. The approved development permit was appealed by the Eastwood
                     Community League.

                     The Board notes that additional documentation and a revised Plot Plan
                     were received from the Respondent prior to the hearing.

                     The Board notes that one letter was received in support of the proposed
                     development and no letters were received in opposition to the proposed
                     development.
SDAB-D-09-128                         2                             July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                The Board heard from Mr. Aldi, President and Ms. Kuzio, both
                representing the Appellant, the Eastwood Community League.

                Mr. Aldi made the following points:

                1. He provided the Board with a letter of opposition with an attached
                   petition signed by the residents of the Barthview Condominium
                   Corporation.
                2. He provided a brief history of the community stating that
                   approximately five to six years ago the Community League was
                   revitalized. This resulted in the decrease of problems in the
                   community relating to drugs, prostitution, and crime.
                3. The membership in the Community League over the last five years
                   increased from 11 to 128 members and that they have been recognized
                   as the number one Community League in the City of Edmonton.
                4. He is not against low cost housing development. However, he felt that
                   this area already has a large amount of these types of developments
                   and that the proposed development should be located in another area.
                   He indicated that residents in the McCauley community were moving
                   out of that neighbourhood as a result of low cost housing
                   developments.
                5. He expressed his concerns with respect to the parking variance and
                   clarified that the shortage of parking creates a concern for the
                   community in relation to the park and shop lifting.

                The Board then heard from Ms. Kuzio, who made the following points:

                1. She has been a resident in the community for over 21 years and lives
                   in a 100 year old house.
                2. When she first moved in the area, there were no problems with drugs
                   or prostitution.
                3. Her main concern is safety and the decrease in property values.
                4. There are a large number of seniors and children that live in this
                   neighbourhood.
                5. The Community League supports homeless initiatives but has concerns
                   with the displacement of the homeless in the downtown area.
                6. She referred to the document provided by the Edmonton Inner City
                   Housing Society and referred to their developments at 11933 – 82
                   Street and 11926 – 82 Street.
                7. She referred to attachment 3A and indicated that there are already
                   these projects in the area contributing to the concentration of low cost
                   housing.
SDAB-D-09-128                         3                              July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                8. The Community League is opposed to the proposed development
                   because it will be for individuals that are single or for couples and not
                   for families.
                9. She is opposed to the deficiency in parking as there is already a
                   shortage in the area.

                The Board then heard from Mr. McDonald, Executive Director and Mr.
                Smith, Vice President, representing the Respondent, the Edmonton Inner
                City Housing Society.

                Mr. Smith made the following points:

                1. He provided an overview of inner city and indicated that he has done
                   fourteen projects which provided housing for approximately 1400
                   people.
                2. They have a 24 year history of providing housing in numerous
                   neighbourhoods in the City.
                3. He indicated that there is a need to house approximately 3000 people
                   in the City and they have the requirement for 1000.
                4. The development is for 16 units stacked in the bi-level configuration
                   and that the average income for these residents is approximately
                   $800.00 per month, which does not allow most residents to afford
                   vehicles.
                5. He disagreed with the Community League that the proposed
                   development will further stress the community.

                Mr. McDonald made the following points:

                1. He approached the Eastwood Community League to attend their
                   meeting on June 17, 2009, but was declined.
                2. With regard to concerns regarding social issues, out of 400 residents
                   they currently have housed, they have had to evict two residents in the
                   past year that were related to drugs.
                3. Their organization does provide family housing in the City of
                   Edmonton.
                4. He addressed the issue of parking and indicated that for 105 units they
                   have 28 stalls and 70 percent are used. The need for parking is a one
                   to five ratio.
                5. He talked about previous decisions of the Board for one of their
                   developments that was approved in 2006 that contained 26 units with
                   13 parking stalls, one in 2000 with 25 units with 6 parking stalls and
                   another project that had 24 units with no parking stalls.
SDAB-D-09-128                         4                              July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                6. He reviewed the photographs from his submission indicating parking
                    is not congested in the area.
                7. His submission contained a letter from the Capital Region Housing
                    Corporation in support of the proposed development.
                8. The development permit application was originally for nineteen
                    parking spaces but was reduced to 13 by the Transportation
                    Department because of the drive aisle width requirement and the
                    location of a power pole.
                9. He referred to photographs from his submission in the area of the 82
                    Street and 119 Avenue that show the proposed site, an adjacent
                    church, and a condominium building surrounding the proposed site.
                10. He referred to Attachment C of his submission indicating that parking
                    for an existing development in the area that has 8 parking stalls for 15
                    units and 16 stalls on another development.

                In response to questions from the Board, Mr. McDonald referred to
                Appendix 1A and 1B, indicating that parking needs for the proposed
                development are reduced because they are located close to shopping
                amenities.

                With respect to tenancy, he stated that the average length of tenancy is 6
                months up to 5 years and the tenant age group is 20 to 80 years.

                The Board then heard from Ms. McGee, Executive Director, representing
                Homeward Trust, who made the following points:

                1. Homeward Trust is responsible for funding 1500 low cost housing
                   units in Edmonton and is in support of the proposed development and
                   that they evaluate developments using certain criteria.
                2. She addressed the question regarding the concentration of low cost
                   development in the area. Homeward Trust has a number of locations
                   in the west end on 149 Street that will be used for low cost
                   development and they are considering banking this land for future
                   development.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Diogo, who made the following points:

                1. He is opposed to the proposed development.
                2. He owns the property immediately north of the subject site and
                   suggested that the City should purchase his property for future
                   development.
SDAB-D-09-128                         5                            July 31, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

                In rebuttal, Mr. Aldi made the following points:

                1. The Respondent informed him that the proposed development was for
                   ten family units and that no variances were required which is the
                   reason the Respondent did not need to attend the Community League
                   meeting.
                2. He is opposed to the separation space, parking, and other variances
                   that may be required.
                3. He will be visiting businesses in the area with the Councillor for this
                   area to address business owners concerns.
                4. He clarified that there is no restrictive parking in the area.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the Development
                Authority CONFIRMED.           The Development Authority’s decision
                contained the following variances and conditions:

                Variances

                1. Relaxation of Section 48.2(1): Principal living room window
                   separation space reduced from 7.5 metres to 3.35 metres facing side
                   yard and 4.6 metres each facing amenity area.
                2. Relaxation of Section 48.3(1): Habitable Room window separation
                   space reduced from 5 metres to 4.6 metres each facing amenity area.
                3. Relaxation of Section 54.2, Schedule 1(1): overall parking spaces
                   required reduced from 19 to 13 spaces.

                Conditions

                1. An approved Development Permit means that the proposed
                   development has been reviewed against the provisions of this bylaw.
                   It does not remove obligations to conform with other legislation,
                   bylaws or land title instruments such as the Municipal Government
                   Act, the Edmonton Building Permit Bylaw or any caveats, covenants
                   or easements that might be attached to the Site.
                2. The Development Permit shall not be valid unless and until the
                   following conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature,
                   have been fulfilled; and no notice of appeal from such approval has
                   been served on the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
                   within the time period specified in subsection 21.1 (Reference
                   Section 17.1).
SDAB-D-09-128                         6                             July 31, 2009
DECISION CONTINUED:

                Conditions Continued

                3. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT
                    REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall pay the outstanding
                    Development Permit application fee of $410.00.
                4. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT
                    REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall pay a Sanitary Sewer
                    Trunk Fund fee of $12,272.00. All assessments are based upon
                    information currently available to the City. The SSTF charges are
                    quoted for the calendar year in which the development permit is
                    granted. The final applicable rate is subject to change based on the
                    year in which the payment is collected by the City of Edmonton.
                5. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT
                    REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall pay a Lot Grading Fee
                    of $600.00.
                6. Any outdoor lighting for any development shall be located and
                    arranged so that no direct rays of light are directed at any adjoining
                    properties, or interfere with the effectiveness of any traffic control
                    devices. (Reference Section 51 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
                    12800).
                7. All outdoor trash collection areas shall be located and screened to the
                    satisfaction of the Development Officer in accordance with Sections
                    55(4) & (5).
                8. Landscaping shall be in accordance to the approved landscape,
                    Section 55 and to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.
                9. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT
                    REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall provide a guaranteed
                    security to ensure that landscaping is provided and maintained for
                    two growing seasons. The Landscape Security may be held for two
                    full years after the landscaping has been completed. This security
                    may take the following forms:
                    a) cash to a value equal to 100 percent of the established
                        landscaping costs; or
                    b) an irrevocable letter of credit having a value equivalent to 100
                        percent of the established landscaping costs.
                10. Any letter of credit shall allow for partial draws. If the landscaping is
                    not completed in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan(s)
                    within one growing season after completion of the development or if
                    the landscaping is not well maintained and in a healthy condition
                    two growing seasons after completion of the landscaping, the City
                    may draw on the security for its use absolutely. Reference Section
                    55.6.
SDAB-D-09-128                          7                              July 31, 2009

DECISION CONTINUED:
                Conditions Continued

                11. The owner shall provide 3 visitor parking spaces readily available to
                    an entrance of the building to be served, and clearly identified as
                    visitor parking to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.
                    Reference Section 54.2(1)(a), Schedule 1(1).
                12. The off-street parking, loading and unloading (including aisles or
                    driveways) shall be hardsurfaced, curbed, drained and maintained in
                    accordance to Section 54.6.
                13. No parking, loading, storage, trash collection, outdoor service or
                    display areas shall be permitted within a required Yard and loading,
                    storage, parking and trash collection areas shall be screened from
                    view from any adjacent site and public roadway in accordance with
                    Section 54 of the Zoning Bylaw.
                14. All access locations and curb crossings shall have the approval of the
                    City Transportation and Streets Department prior to the start of
                    construction. Reference Section 53(1):

                   a) The proposed 4.8 metre one-way directional access to 119 Avenue
                      (inbound), as shown on Enclosure I, must be widened to 5 m and
                      must be constructed as a commercial crossing as per the City of
                      Edmonton Design and Construction Standards. The access can be
                      transitioned back to 4.8 m inside the property line. The
                      owner/applicant must obtain a curb crossing permit, available from
                      the Planning and Development Department, 5th Floor, 10250 101
                      Street (contact Val Gordychuk at 780-496-6733 to make an
                      appointment). The access must be properly signed indicating the
                      operation of the access and all signage must be provided on private
                      property.
                   b) The one-way exit to the alley from the site must be properly signed
                      indicating the operation of the access and all signage must be
                      provided on private property, as shown on Enclosure I.
                   c) There is an existing power pole in the alley that may interfere with
                      access to a proposed parking stall, as shown on Enclosure I. Should
                      relocation of the pole/guy-wire be required, all costs associated with
                      relocation must be borne by the owner/applicant. The applicant
                      should contact Kin Lui (780-412-4510) of EPCOR Distribution &
                      Technologies for more information.
                   d) The area between the parking stalls and the alley driving surface
                      must be paved, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Department,
                      as shown on Enclosure I.

SDAB-D-09-128                          8                            July 31, 2009


DECISION CONTINUED:
                Conditions Continued

                   e) A barrier must be placed inside the property line at the south-west
                      corner of the site to prevent vehicles from driving through this area,
                      as shown on Enclosure I.
                   f) The proposed fence and gate must not encroach onto, over or under
                      road right-of-way, as shown on Enclosure I. The gate must either
                      swing into the property or slide along the fence.
                   g) A concrete pad must be constructed for the garbage bins on private
                      property to provide an adequate base that will withstand the weight
                      of the waste management vehicle when loading, as shown on
                      Enclosure I.
                   h) There may be utilities within road right-of-way not specified that
                      must be considered during construction. The owner/applicant is
                      responsible for the location of all underground and above ground
                      utilities and maintaining required clearances as specified by the
                      utility companies. Any costs associated with relocations and/or
                      removals shall be at the expense of the owner/applicant.
                   i) Any alley, sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring as a result of
                      construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of the
                      Transportation Department, as per Section 15.5(f) of the Zoning
                      Bylaw. The alley, sidewalks and boulevard will be inspected by the
                      Transportation Department prior to construction, and again once
                      construction is complete. All expenses incurred for repair are to be
                      borne by the owner.
                   j) Any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-way
                      requires an OSCAM permit. It should be noted that the hoarding
                      must not damage boulevard trees. The owner must call
                      Transportation Operations at 780-442-6458 to arrange for the
                      permit.

                      Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance to Section 54.3 and
                      to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.

                      NOTE: Signs require separate Development Applications.




SDAB-D-09-128                          9                            July 31, 2009

DECISION CONTINUED:

                Conditions Continued
                        NOTE: The City of Edmonton does not conduct independent
                              environmental checks of land within the City. If you are
                              concerned about the suitability of this property for any
                              purpose, you should conduct your own tests and reviews.
                              The City of Edmonton, in issuing this Development
                              Permit, makes no representations and offers no warranties
                              as to the suitability of the property for any purpose or as to
                              the presence or absence of any environmental
                              contaminants on the property.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                  The Board finds the following:

                  1. The proposed development is a Permitted Use in the RA7 Low Rise
                     Apartment Zone.
                  2. Although the Board recognizes the concerns of the community, the
                     Board makes its decision on the basis of planning reasons.
                  3. The reduction in parking spaces is fully supported by the
                     Transportation Department.
                  4. The Board accepts the evidence that renters from this building will
                     have an average income of approximately $800.00 per month which
                     precludes most individuals from owning a vehicle.
                  5. The development is located close to LRT and transit routes which will
                     provide the renters adequate transportation needs other than a
                     vehicle.
                  6. The variances required for the deficiency in separation space are
                     mitigated by an excess in site width, an excess in site area, and an
                     excess in the required side yards. Further, the proposed density is
                     less than the maximum 17.6 allowed in the RA7 Low Rise Apartment
                     Zone.
                  7. Based on the above reasons the proposed development will not unduly
                     interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                     interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                     parcels of land.”




SDAB-D-09-128                          10                            July 31, 2009

         IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
     separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
     10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.    When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
      and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
      approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.

3.    A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
      date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
      permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
      development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
      information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

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

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

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

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


                                                    Ms. A. VandenBorn, Presiding Officer
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD

cc:

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Home Based Business Evict document sample