Docstoc

SDAB Decisions - July 3, 2008 - Heritage Room

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



                                                   DATE: July 18, 2008
9636 – 109A Avenue                                 APPLICATION NO: 77806607-001
EDMONTON, AB T5H 1G5                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-139

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 5, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Operate a Major Home Based Business (Administration office for AL-ODENSKY TRUCKING
LTD.).

on Lot 30, Block 34, Plan ND, located at 9636 – 109A Avenue, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 3, 2008. The decision of the Board
was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development
                     Authority to refuse an application to operate a Major Home Based
                     Business (Administration office for AL-ODENSKY TRUCKING LTD.)
                     located at 9636 – 109A Avenue. The subject site is zoned DC1 Direct
                     Development Control Provision and is located within the Boyle Street
                     McCauley Area Redevelopment Plan. The Development Officer deemed
                     the proposed development to be a General Contractor Service which is
                     neither a Permitted nor Discretionary Use in the DC1 (Area 6) Zone.

                     At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer explained to the
                     Appellants that due to the proposed development being in a DC1 zoned
                     area, the Board has to be satisfied that the Development Officer erred in
                     following the directions of Council in the interpretation of the DC Bylaw.

                     The Board then heard from Al and Diane Odensky, the Appellants and
                     property owners. Mr. Odensky stated that he is a sub-contractor for
                     LaFarge Concrete. He contracts the services of his tandem truck and hauls
                     paving materials.


SDAB-D-08-139                               2                                       July 18, 2008
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                Mr. Odensky stated that, in his opinion, his business is a Major Home
                Based Business and not a General Contractor Service. He stated that no
                business related materials were stored at the subject site and he did not
                carry out any business activities on the subject site other than parking the
                tandem truck. He stated he does not do construction, landscaping or
                excavation as a General Contractor Service would do. He just moves
                materials at locations other than his home.

                The Board then determined that the Development Officer had erred in
                defining the proposed development as a General Contractor Service which
                would be better described as a Major Home Based Business. The Board
                accepted jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.

                The Board acknowledges a petition received from the Applicants with 23
                signatures in support of the proposed Major Home Based Business. The
                Board notes there were also two letters of support and one letter of
                opposition received, copies of which are on file

                Al and Diane Odensky indicated that the tandem truck is only used during
                the summer months. The tandem truck is parked at the rear of the subject
                site during winter months. Mr. Odensky indicated he was willing to build
                a garage to store his truck if it was a requirement but was not sure if such a
                garage could be built within the regulations set out in the Edmonton
                Zoning Bylaw.

                In response to questions, Mr. Odensky stated the tandem truck gross
                vehicle weight was 8800 kilograms.

                The Appellants provided a list and photographs of other residential sites
                where commercial trucks are parked and whose operators have permits to
                park the vehicles. However, in response to questions, they acknowledged
                they could not confirm that these individuals had permits and also that
                these sites were not zoned DC1.

                Due to concerns about safety, a video camera has been installed to allow
                them to see the truck when it is parked as the truck has been vandalized in
                the past at their residence as well as when it was being stored off site.




SDAB-D-08-139                          3                                       July 18, 2008
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                 Ms. Odensky also referred to a letter of opposition that had been filed with
                 the Board. She explained there had been some miscommunication about
                 that neighbour parking too close to the alley.


DECISION:

                 that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the DEVELOPMENT
                 AUTHORITY CONFIRMED


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The Development Officer had erred in defining the business as a
                        General Contractor Service which is not an allowable use in the
                        DC1 (Area 6) Zone.
                 2.     Based on the evidence provided by the Appellant, the business can
                        be characterized as a Major Home Based Business which is an
                        allowable use within the DC1 (Area 6) under Section 8.4.17.3.7 of
                        Bylaw 10704.
                 3.     In accordance with Section 2.7 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw,
                        the relevant land use bylaw to consider is the Land Use Bylaw
                        5996.
                 4.     Section 45.1(a) of the Land Use Bylaw states that no person shall
                        keep in any part of a Site in any Residential Zone any commercial
                        vehicle, loaded or unloaded, of a maximum gross weight (G.V.W.)
                        in excess of 4500 kilograms. The commercial vehicle is in excess
                        of 4500 kilograms.
                 5.     From the evidence provided, the Appellant stated that the
                        commercial vehicle would continue to be stored outdoors which is
                        in contravention of Section 85 of the Land Use Bylaw. Section 85
                        requires that there shall be no outdoor storage of equipment
                        associated with the business.
                 6.     For the above reasons, the proposed development would 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-08-139                            4                                     July 18, 2008

                  IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (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.
SDAB-D-08-139                               5                                      July 18, 2008

        (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.

NOTE:
        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-08-139                            6                                    July 18, 2008

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




                                                Ms. M. McCallum, Presiding Officer
                                                SUBDIVISION     AND       DEVELOPMENT
                                                APPEAL BOARD
cc:   Gordon and Wendy Aasen
      Mohammed Amir Udding / Md. Foyshol Uddin
      Colleen Chapman
                     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: July 18, 2008
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 63118981-003
2322 – 35A Avenue                                  FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-140
EDMONTON, AB T6T 1W1

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 6, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct a rear uncovered deck (3.05 metres by 4.41 metres at 1.89 metres in height)
existing without permits.

on Lot 53, Block 18, Plan 0524080, located at 16419 – 61 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 3, 2008. The decision of the Board
was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

              “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority to
              refuse an application to construct a rear uncovered deck (3.05 metres by 4.41
              metres at 1.89 metres in height) existing without permits located at 16419 – 61
              Street. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The
              refusal is based on an excess in the maximum total allowable Site Coverage.

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

              The Board heard from Mr. Harjinder Gill, representing New Century Homes, the
              Appellant. He stated the following:

              (1)    He is the owner of New Century Homes and the builder of the home on
                     the subject site.
              (2)    He sold the subject site subsequent to completing the home on the
                     condition he would provide the purchaser with a deck.
              (3)    The deck was built without a development permit, although he did
                     acknowledge being aware that a permit was required. This was the first
                     time he has made this mistake.
SDAB-D-08-140                             2                                    July      18,
           2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

            (4)    He had sold the house approximately two years ago but built the deck
                   prior to the purchaser taking possession of the property.
            (5)    That funds were being withheld by the purchaser until the development
                   permit for the deck was received.

            In response to questions, Mr. Gill indicated:

            (1)    He has not discussed any options for reducing the size of the deck with
                   the property owner, should the appeal be denied.
            (2)    Reducing the size of the deck would be very costly.
            (3)    The owner had built the steps after the deck had been completed.
            (4)    He had spoken to the neighbour to the north of the subject site who
                   indicated verbally that he has no objection to the deck as it exists.

            Mr. Gill provided photographs of other similar decks in the same
            neighbourhood.


DECISION:

            that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the excess
            of 10.15 square metres in maximum total allowable site coverage be permitted.



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      The proposed development is accessory to a Permitted Use in the
                           RF1 Zone
                   2.      There were no letters of objection to the existing deck.
                   3.      The Appellant provided evidence that the neighbour to the north of
                           the subject site verbally advised that he had no objections to the
                           existing deck.
                   4.      The Appellant provided photographs evidencing that the existing
                           deck was characteristic of the neighbourhood.
                   5.      For the above 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-08-140                            3                                     July      18,
           2008

                  IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (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.
SDAB-D-08-140                               4                                      July       18,
           2008

        (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.

NOTE:

        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-08-140                           5                                    July      18,
           2008

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




                                               Ms. M. McCallum, 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: July 18, 2008
6712 – 108 Avenue                                  APPLICATION NO: 76791251-002
EDMONTON, AB T6A 1P6                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-141

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 10, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct an addition to a Detached Garage (Carport – 3.96 metres by 5.38 metres) existing
without permits.

on Lot 21, Block 18, Plan RN43, located at 11632 – 95A Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 3, 2008. The decision of the Board
was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

              “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority to
              refuse an application to construct an addition to a Detached Garage (Carport –
              3.96 metres by 5.38 metres) existing without permits located at 11632 – 95A
              Street. The subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density Development and is located
              within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is based on the fact the
              building is non-conforming due to an existing deficiency in the minimum
              required Side Yard and, an excess in the maximum allowable Site Coverage of
              an Accessory Building or Structure.

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

              The Board heard from Uldis Celinskis, who was appointed executor of the estate
              of Janis Putnins in December of 2007. Upon being appointed executor, he
              applied for a Compliance Certificate and at that time learned that the
              gazebo/covered patio and the carport did not have development permits. He
              stated that the gazebo/covered patio will be removed.
SDAB-D-08-141                            2                                     July 18, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

            Mr. Celinskis stated that the carport was built in 1968 or 1969 and is
            structurally sound. The carport being added to the garage had caused an
            overage in the allowable site coverage for an Accessory Building. He provided
            the Board with documentation consisting of signatures in support of retaining
            the existing carport from five of the most immediately adjacent neighbours
            including the neighbours on both sides of the subject site. He stated that the
            property had recently been sold and the purchaser was aware of the compliance
            issues. He also felt that the structure is characteristic of the neighbourhood.
            The carport is not large and pervasive. In his opinion, as a result of the size of
            the lot, it would be difficult to build a useable double car garage. He noted that
            the carport was built as a shelter for a company full-size pickup truck that the
            previous property owner brought home on a daily basis.

            In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Celinskis confirmed that the
            minimum required side yard was on the garage side and there was plenty of
            room on the south side of the carport side of the subject site.


DECISION:

            that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the
            deficiency of 0.51 metres in the minimum side yard requirement and the excess
            of 3.85 square metres in the maximum allowable site coverage of Accessory
            Buildings or Structures be permitted



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.     The proposed development is accessory to a Permitted Use in the
                          RF3 Zone.
                   2.     There were no letters of objection received.
                   3.     There were five signatures in support of retaining the carport from
                          the adjacent and nearby neighbours.
                   4.     The carport structure has been in existence for approximately 40
                          years without complaint.
                   5.     The total site coverage is less than the 40 percent allowed in the
                          RF3 Zone.
SDAB-D-08-141                            3                                    July 18, 2008


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   6.      The existing development is a non-conforming building in
                           accordance with Section 643(1) of the Municipal Government Act.
                           However, the Board has variance powers under Section 643(5) of
                           the Municipal Government Act and Section 11 of the Edmonton
                           Zoning Bylaw.
                   7.      For the above 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, located
     on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

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

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

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

5.   Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not
     lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum
     development permit.
SDAB-D-08-141                            4                                    July 18, 2008


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-08-141                               5                                     July 18, 2008


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

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

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

        (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.




                                                   Ms. M. McCallum, 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: July 18, 2008
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 76373719-001
10561 – 76 Avenue                                  FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-142
EDMONTON, AB T6E 1L4

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 4, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct a Semi-detached House

on Lot 12, Block A, Plan 1219Q, located at 6617 / 6619 – 106 Street, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 3, 2008. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development
                     Authority to refuse an application to construct a Semi-detached House
                     located at 6617 / 6619 – 106 Street. The subject site is zoned RF3 Low
                     Density Development Zone and is located within the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is based on an excess in maximum
                     allowable Site Coverage for a principal building, a deficiency in
                     minimum required Site Area, a deficiency in minimum required Site
                     Width, and a deficiency in the minimum Rear Yard requirement, that
                     being 40 percent of the Site Depth.

                     The Board heard from Jennifer Annesley and Neil Zinger representing
                     the Appellant, The 1912 Studio Ltd. They explained they were in the
                     process of obtaining approval for their first complete development
                     project, located on 106 Street. They have previously only done home
                     renovation projects. They supplied the Board with photographs,
                     drawings and, signatures of six adjacent neighbours in support of the
                     proposed development. As well, a letter of support from the Allendale
                     Community League was provided.
SDAB-D-08-142                         2                                    July 18, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                Ms. Annesley and Mr. Zinger felt that the variances that should be
                considered by the Board would be the site coverage and rear yard. They
                had discussed the application with the Development Officer who
                recommended this to them. First, with respect to the site coverage excess
                of four percent, the Appellants felt this innovative design would be more
                appealing from a neighbouring vantage point. They also felt that the
                deficiency in the minimum rear yard is minimal and contributes to the
                excess in site coverage. The rear yard will be landscaped to provide
                maximum amenity space to both residences. They stated they could
                move the units one metre closer to the front property line but would
                prefer not to do this because of the front seating area in the design and
                the alignment with other homes on the block. This development is in
                keeping with the character of the neighbourhood as there are a number
                of new duplexes close to this property. They live in the community
                themselves and feel the proposed development would enhance the
                neighbourhood.

                Subsequent to in-camera discussions, the Appellants were recalled to
                address the issue of the basement elevation. They indicated they would
                be willing to lower the height of the basement to eight feet to reduce the
                variance required. In response to questions, Mr. Zinger advised that
                they would be selling both of the housing units and did not intend to
                finish the basement area prior to selling the units. Development of the
                basement would be left to the purchaser. They also advised that the
                duplex to the north of the subject site was higher than the 1.6 metres
                above grade that they were proposing.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the
                following variances be permitted:

                1.     The excess of 0.46 metres in the requirement that the basement
                       elevation of structures two or more storeys in height shall be no
                       more that 1.2 metres above grade.
                2.     The excess of 15.214 square metres in the maximum allowable
                       Site Coverage for a principal building.
                3.     The deficiency of 421.74 square metres in the minimum Site Area
                       requirement.
SDAB-D-08-142                          3                                    July 18, 2008


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                 4.     The deficiency of 9.94 metres in the minimum Site Width
                        requirement.
                 5.     A deficiency of 2.224 metres in the minimum Rear Yard
                        requirement, that being 40 percent of the Site Depth.

                 Subject to the following condition:

                 1.     Any basement development will require a separate Development
                        Permit.


REASONS FOR DECISION:


                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The Stacked Row Housing development is a Discretionary Use in
                        the RF3 Zone.
                 2.     The Appellants have the support of the adjacent and nearby
                        neighbours and the Allendale Community League.
                 3.     With respect to the issue of site width, the proposed housing units
                        are staggered mitigating the requirement for full site width.
                 4.     With respect to site area, the Board accepts the submission of the
                        application that the proposed development is an appropriate
                        development for the subject site and the area.
                 5.     The Board accepts the evidence of the Appellants that there are
                        other developments in the area that have higher basement
                        elevations than that proposed by the Appellants.
                 6.     Based on plans submitted, the proposed development maintains the
                        maximum use of the front and rear yards while maintaining the
                        blockface average.
                 7.     The architecture of the proposed project is in keeping with the
                        requirements of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay and the
                        blockface.
                 8.     For the above 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-08-142                            4                                    July 18, 2008

                  IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (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.
SDAB-D-08-142                               5                                     July 18, 2008

        (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.

NOTE:
        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-08-142                           6                                   July 18, 2008

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




                                               Ms. M. McCallum, 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: July 18, 2008
8925 – 152 Street                                  APPLICATION NO: 77526885-001
EDMONTON, AB T5R 1M1                        FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-143

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 10, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Operate a Major Home Based Business (administration office and recruitment centre for foreign
workers).

on Lot 18, Block 7B, Plan 5778KS, located at 8925 – 152 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 3, 2008. The decision of the Board
was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “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 (administration office and recruitment centre
                     for foreign workers) located at 8925 – 152 Street. The subject site is
                     zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone.              The approved
                     Development Permit was subsequently appealed by the Jasper Park
                     Community League.

                     The Board heard from the Appellant, Don Kuchelyma, President of the
                     Jasper Park Community League. He was accompanied by Wendy Smitten
                     who resides near the subject site. Mr. Kuchelyma provided the Board with
                     photographs depicting 152 Street, the Respondent’s home and a package
                     of information, copies of which are on file.
SDAB-D-08-143                         2                                      July 18, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                Mr. Kuchelyma provided the following information during his
                submission:

                (1)    At a community league general meeting in June, 2008, a motion
                       was passed allowing the community league to appeal the approved
                       application for the Major Home Based Business based on the
                       opposition of a number of community league members.
                (2)    The photographs and maps submitted illustrate the two schools
                       located immediately across from the subject site.
                (3)    He stated that the proposed Major Home Based Business at 8925 –
                       152 Street is not an easy address to find since 152 Street is not a
                       through road.
                (4)    In addition, the photographs submitted show how difficult it is to
                       read the house numbers.
                (5)    He had tried to find the number on the house for 8925 – 152 Street
                       but had not been able to see the number until he was nearly at the
                       door.
                (6)    The entrance to the school playground is immediately across from
                       the subject site.
                (7)    Due to the difficulty in locating the subject site, motorists will not
                       be paying proper attention and may not see children playing.
                (8)    The average number of business visits to the subject site is
                       proposed to be between five and seven visits. He did not know if
                       this was an average number.
                (9)    Some employment agencies he spoke to had advised him that
                       whenever there is advertising for a specific job, there are more
                       applications.
                (10)   There are no parking restrictions on 152 Street.


                In response to questions from the Board, he stated that the community
                league had concerns as to whether or not the proposed development was
                good or bad for the community and felt it was not a good development.

                Ms. Smitten confirmed she resided two doors from the subject site and did
                not support the proposed development due to traffic and safety issues.
SDAB-D-08-143                         3                                     July 18, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from Dr. Abigail Capati, speaking on behalf of her
                mother, the Respondent, Gigi Capati. Dr. Capati made the following
                points:

                (1)    They were also concerned about child safety and would not want
                       to be bringing more traffic into the neighbourhood.
                (2)    The purpose of the proposed business is to link employers with
                       potential employees and would more aptly be described as a call
                       centre. She has researched this type of business and knows of at
                       least two others.
                (3)    Her mother would be contacting potential employers in Canada
                       and meeting with them at their place of business. She would then
                       contact potential employees by telephone in the Philippines in
                       order to match employees and employers.
                (4)    The business only requires a home office with a computer and fax
                       machine.
                (5)    There is no need for signage as all the business information would
                       be on a business card which will contain a telephone number and
                       an e-mail address. The address of the residence would not be on
                       the business card.
                (6)    Employers would prefer that her mother meet them at their place
                       of business and this is beneficial to her mother as it will allow her
                       to carry out a site visit and assess the different work places.
                (7)    As a matter of personal safety, all contact with employers and
                       employees will be away from the residence. The residents of the
                       home are all female and it is considered preferable to keep
                       business contacts away from the residence.
                (8)    When a contract employee arrives in Canada, they go directly to
                       the employer’s place of business as the employers often arrange
                       housing for these employees. From time to time it may be
                       necessary for her mother to meet employees at the airport but from
                       there they would be taken to the employer or previously arranged
                       housing.
                (9)    In the event that an employer does not provide housing, it would
                       be made clear the employee will not be provided with housing at
                       the subject site, again due to reasons of personal safety.
                (10)   As well, she noted that foreign workers arriving in Canada do not
                       own motor vehicles.
SDAB-D-08-143                          4                                     July 18, 2008


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                 (11)   She and Ms. Capati were not at the community league meeting due
                        to personal and work schedules.
                 (12)   The business has not begun; commencement is pending the
                        outcome of the permitting process.

                 In response to questions, she noted that should any difficulties arise
                 between employer and employee these issues would be dealt with between
                 those parties. The recruiting agent is no longer in involved.

                 In rebuttal, Mr. Kuchelyma stated that the community league had obtained
                 their information from the application form completed by the Respondent.
                 He felt that there had obviously been changes as to what was on the
                 application form since the proposed development was now being
                 described as a call centre and there would not be any customer visits to the
                 home per day. He also felt that the recruiter might be expected to
                 intervene if difficulties arose between the employee and employer.

                 Mr. Kuchelyma reiterated that in terms of safety of children the entrance
                 to the school and play area was directly across the street from the subject
                 site.



DECISION:

                 that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the DEVELOPMENT
                 AUTHORITY CONFIRMED



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The proposed development is a Discretionary Use in the RF1
                        Zone.
                 2.     The nature of the business minimizes the number of business
                        related visits taking place on the subject site on a daily basis.
SDAB-D-08-143                            5                                    July 18, 2008


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   3.      The concerns of the Community League were primarily safety of
                           the children and increased traffic. The Board accepts the
                           submission of the Respondent that there will be minimal business
                           visits so there should not be an increase in traffic or safety
                           concerns.
                   4.      In all respects the proposed business complies with the
                           requirements of the Zoning Bylaw for a Major Home Based
                           Business.
                   5.      For the above 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, located
     on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

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

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

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

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

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


SDAB-D-08-143                            6                                    July 18, 2008
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.

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

            (a)    are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
                   and
            (b)    are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
                   granted, at the appeal.
SDAB-D-08-143                              7                                   July 18, 2008


NOTE:

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

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




                                                  Ms. M. McCallum, Presiding Officer
                                                  SUBDIVISION     AND       DEVELOPMENT
                                                  APPEAL BOARD

cc:     Jasper Park Community League – Attn: D. Kuchelyma
        Wendy Smitten

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:4/13/2011
language:English
pages:29
Jun Wang Jun Wang Dr
About Some of Those documents come from internet for research purpose,if you have the copyrights of one of them,tell me by mail vixychina@gmail.com.Thank you!