Subdivision and

Document Sample
Subdivision and 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: August 28, 2009
                                                    APPLICATION NO: 87616441-001
P.O. Box 22555                                      FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-171
EDMONTON, AB T6W 1SO

           NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

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

Develop an additional dwelling unit in an existing apartment house and increase the total from 19
to 20 dwellings on site

on Lots 4 and 5, Block 4, Plan 2531AB, located at 11124 – 124 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 13, 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 Appeal
                      Board to develop an additional dwelling unit in an existing apartment house
                      and increase the total from 19 to 20 dwellings on site located at 11124 –
                      124 Street. The subject site is zoned RA8 Medium Rise Apartment Zone.
                      The proposed development was refused due to a deficiency in the required
                      Separation Space, a deficiency in the minimum required Amenity Area,
                      and a deficiency in the required number of on-site parking spaces.

                      The Board notes that no letters of support or objection were received.
SDAB-D-09-171                         2                                  August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from Mr. Vincent, representing 379042 Alberta Ltd., the
                Appellant. He provided the following information in support of his appeal:

                1.     The property was purchased in 1999 as a 20-suite development.
                2.     The property consists of two buildings on a site that is 14,500
                       square feet in size which, under current regulations, could be used
                       to have buildings that contain 30 suites.
                3.     He is seeking approval for an existing bachelor suite that has been
                       part of the property since the purchase by the Appellant and for a
                       number of years prior to that.
                4.     The original application was to increase the number of dwelling
                       units from 19 units to 20 units inclusive of the existing bachelor
                       suite. The Development Permit application originated as a result of
                       a complaint submitted to Bylaw Enforcement.
                5.     Confusion surrounding the subject site may have been caused when
                       the application for a development permit was changed to suggest
                       that an additional dwelling unit was to be developed which is not
                       the case.
                6.     The building is a well-maintained, well-cared for upgraded building
                       providing housing for individuals in the middle to low-income
                       range.
                7.     He noted that there is separation space between the area where the
                       cars park and the living room window. He is prepared to block off
                       this space in front of the living room window of the subject suite so
                       no one would park their vehicle there in order to address the
                       deficiency in the privacy space from the principal living room
                       window. In answering a question, he advised that there is about 18-
                       20 feet between the window and the area where the cars physically
                       park.
                8.     There is adequate amenity area for the facility, including a room
                       (2.4 metres by 2.5 metres) located directly across the hall from the
                       subject suite, a laundry room with a seating area and a courtyard
                       that is approximately 20 metres by 6 metres in size. In addition,
                       there is a grassed area at the front of the building (approximately
                       30.4 metres by 6 metres) that is used extensively by building
                       residents because of the activity along 124 Street.
                9.     In his experience, the currently allocated and allowed 15 parking
                       stalls have never been filled to capacity given the property is
                       located on 124 Street and in close proximity to public transit.
SDAB-D-09-171                        3                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                10.   The tenant base is generally mid to low-income individuals who do
                      not own vehicles. With the number of vacant parking spaces, there
                      are often problems related to individuals parking in spaces but not
                      residing in the building.
                11.   He reiterated that it was his understanding that the building was
                      approved for 20 suites and he has paid property taxes to the City for
                      20 suites since he purchased the property. A copy of an email from
                      the City Tax Department confirming this was submitted as
                      evidence, a copy of which is on file.
                12.   The longstanding use of this particular bachelor suite is allocated to
                      low income rentals and the current tenant would be put in a
                      hardship position if required to find alternative accommodation. In
                      support of this, a letter from the existing tenant was submitted, a
                      copy of which is on file.
                13.   He provided a copy of a letter from the current on-site manager
                      confirming the well-kept state of the property and confirming that
                      the building provides housing for low to mid-income and helps
                      those who are unable to afford adequate housing.
                14.   A petition containing four letters of support from adjacent property
                      owners was submitted, a copy of which is on file.
                15.   The property complies with all the necessary regulations, including
                      fire regulations and he submitted a letter confirming this, a copy of
                      which is on file.
                16.   A letter from the previous property manager was submitted who
                      confirmed that they had managed the property for over five years
                      and the building had always contained 20 suites. In their opinion,
                      the housing units provided a viable way of obtaining safe and
                      affordable housing for low-income individuals.
                17.   Approved development permits from 1957 and 1965 were
                      submitted and it was suggested that these permits may have actually
                      authorized 22 dwelling units.
                18.   He was not able to understand the issue regarding parking layout
                      given that he had looked at similar properties in the area and, in his
                      opinion, the City has permitted vehicular parking much closer to
                      dwelling units than is permitted on his site.
SDAB-D-09-171                          4                                   August 28, 2009


DECISION:

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

                1.      The deficiency of 4.5 metres in the minimum required Privacy
                        Space from the Principal Living Room Window to the parking area;
                2.      The deficiency of 7.5 square metres in the minimum required
                        Amenity Space; and
                3.      The deficiency of 9 parking spaces in the total required number of
                        parking spaces.



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development is a Permitted Use in the RA8 Zone.
                2.      Based on evidence from the Appellant, the development has existed
                        with 20 units since the late 1960’s.
                3.      Currently, the vehicular parking is not used to capacity within the
                        currently allowed 15 parking spaces given the tenant mix and close
                        proximity to public transit immediately in front of the project.
                4.      It is impossible to provide the required separation space and parking
                        given the existing footprint of the building.
                5.      The Board finds the age of the subject development is not unlike
                        similar developments in the immediate area, and as such, the
                        configuration of the parking area is not uncharacteristic of the area.
                6.      The overall property provides multiple amenity spaces for the use
                        of the residents, including a courtyard and a landscaped front yard
                        which provides for active and passive recreation.
                7.      There were no letters of opposition and no one appeared in
                        opposition to the proposed development.
                8.      There was support for the proposed development as identified by a
                        petition and letters submitted by the Appellant.
SDAB-D-09-171                             5                                   August 28, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                    9.     The building has been in existence for a significant period of time
                           in its present condition without complaint from the nearby property
                           owners.
                    10.    Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
                           interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially
                           interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                           parcels of land.”




          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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.
SDAB-D-09-171                            6                               August 28, 2009

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.




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



                                                   DATE: August 28, 2009
5207 – 109 Avenue NW                               APPLICATION NO: 87142897-002
EDMONTON, AB T6A 1R9                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D–09-172

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

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

Construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage 7.47 metres by 8.53 metres with covered
landing 1.22 metres by 2.29 metres)

on Lot 16, Block 34, Plan 2442KS, located at 5207 – 109 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 13, 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 construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage
                     7.47 metres by 8.53 metres with covered landing 1.22 metres by 2.29
                     metres) located at 5207 – 109 Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned RF1
                     Single Detached Residential Zone and is located within the Mature
                     Neighbourhood Overlay. The proposed development was refused due to an
                     excess in the allowable number of storeys of an Accessory Building, an
                     excess in the maximum allowable Site Coverage of an Accessory Building,
                     and an excess in the maximum allowable distance the ridge line of the roof
                     extends above the maximum permitted building Height of the Zone.

                     The Board notes that there were no letters of support or opposition
                     received.
SDAB-D-09-172                         2                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from the property owners and Appellants, C. Wells and K.
                Wells. The Appellants provided a written submission with attachments
                including photographs, a copy of which is on file. Mr. & Mrs. Wells
                provided the following information in support of their appeal:

                1.     The site coverage for the Accessory Building, according to the
                       Development Officer, exceeds the requirements under the
                       Edmonton Zoning Bylaw by 2.42 square metres (0.45 percent).
                       Removal of the covered landing on the detached garage would
                       effectively reduce the site coverage to 11.93 square metres.
                2.     The garage immediately across the rear lane from the subject site is
                       22 feet high while the proposed garage is 21 feet in height.
                3.     A petition in support of the proposed development was submitted,
                       containing signatures in support from 24 residences located within
                       the 60-metre notification area. They were unable to contact six
                       other residences within the notification area.
                4.     There was no opposition expressed to the proposed development.
                5.     They intend to construct a new home on the subject site once the
                       existing house has been demolished. With the proposed house and
                       accessory building, the total allowable site coverage will be less
                       than the maximum allowable of 40 percent.
                6.     Residential lots in the area are quite small and contain a significant
                       number of mature trees. The neighbouring property owners did not
                       object to the loss of any sunlight resulting from the proposed
                       development. The proposed development is being sited in the
                       middle of the lot which will mitigate any loss of sunlight on
                       neighbouring properties and retain the mature trees.
                7.     They had considered applying for an attached garage but that style
                       of garage proved not to be practical for their use.
                8.     There were different types of renovations taking place in different
                       parts of the neighbourhood and they had the support of their
                       neighbours.
                9.     There are windows on all four sides of the proposed garage but it
                       was noted that these windows face either garages on surrounding
                       properties or the rear lane.
                10.    They would accept a condition not allowing them to use the second
                       floor as a rental suite.
SDAB-D-09-172                          3                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                11.     Natural gas and power will be installed in the proposed
                        development. In addition, there will be hot and cold water by way
                        of a hose connection. There are no plans to connect to the sanitary
                        sewer. A floor drain will be installed on the main floor.
                12.     The second floor is, in fact, an open area and used by the Appellants
                        as a hobby room.


DECISION:
                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 1.25 metres in the maximum allowable Height of an
                Accessory Building, the excess of one storey for an Accessory Building,
                the excess of 2.42 square metres in the maximum allowable site coverage
                of Accessory Buildings or Structures, and the excess of 1.30 metres in the
                maximum allowable extension of the ridge line of the roof be permitted,
                subject to the following conditions:

                1.      There shall be no habitable space developed in the garage, with the
                        exception of a woodworking hobby area.
                2.      The exterior finish of the Accessory Building shall be compatible
                        with the proposed principal dwelling.
                3.      Eaves, including eavestroughing may project a maximum of 0.46
                        metres (1.5 feet) into required yards or separation spaces of less
                        than 1.2 metres (four feet).
                4.      Eavestroughing shall be installed and drainage must take place
                        entirely on subject property.
                5.      The Applicant shall install a remote control garage door opener.
                6.      The access to the garage shall be hardsurfaced. Hardsurfacing shall
                        mean the provision of a durable, dust-free material constructed of
                        concrete, asphalt or similar pavement capable of withstanding
                        expected vehicle loads.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development is accessory to a Permitted Use in the
                        RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone.
                2.      The Appellants have the support of the majority of the property
                        owners located within the 60-metre notification radius.
SDAB-D-09-172                             4                                    August 28, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                    3.     The total site coverage will be less that the maximum allowable 40
                           percent Site Coverage.
                    4.     The proposed development will be compatible with the garage
                           located immediately south of the subject site.
                    5.     The location of the proposed garage is adjacent to the lane and
                           neighbouring detached garages.
                    6.     Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
                           interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially
                           interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                           parcels of land.”




          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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.
SDAB-D-09-172                            5                                August 28, 2009

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.



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



                                                   DATE: August 28, 2009
2417 – 106A Street NW                              APPLICATION NO: 87209824-001
EDMONTON, AB T6J 4R3                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D–09-173

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated July 15, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Operate a Major Home Based Business (Vehicle Sales)

on Lot 6, Block 29, Plan 7721676, located at 2417 – 106A Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 13, 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 (Vehicle Sales) located at 2417 – 106A Street NW. The
                     subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The approved
                     development permit was subsequently appealed by an adjacent neighbour.

                     The Board notes there were two letters received in opposition to the
                     proposed development, copies of which are on file. These letters of
                     objection both reference safety concerns, increased traffic, and the lack of
                     upkeep of the subject site.
SDAB-D-09-173                         2                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Baird who indicated that he was
                appearing before the Board on behalf of a number of neighbours who
                objected to the proposed development. He provided the following
                information in support of his appeal:

                1.     There are other home based businesses in the immediate area but
                       nothing like the storage of vehicles outside of the principal
                       dwelling.
                2.     Vehicles in a state of disrepair are being stored in front of the
                       principal dwelling as well as on the street.
                3.     They are concerned about parking and traffic problems and child
                       safety.
                4.     In his opinion, this particular development is unsuitable for the
                       neighbourhood.
                5.     He had received a letter from Mr. Yan, the Respondent, stating that
                       there would be no customer visits to the subject site, cars would not
                       be test driven in the neighbourhood and there would be no outside
                       storage or repairs.
                6.     Concerns were expressed given Mr. Yan was a tenant at the subject
                       site and when he moves to a new residence, the development permit
                       will remain with the property and a new resident may not abide by
                       the rules that he has indicated he is prepared to follow.
                7.     Since the development permit appeal was filed, some of the old
                       vehicles on the subject site have been removed.

                The Board also heard from Mr. Kaplinsky who provided the following
                information:

                1.     The proposed Major Home Based Business is more appropriate for
                       a commercial or industrial zone, not a residential zoning.
                2.     Neighbours may not be able to differentiate between vehicles
                       owned by residents of the subject site or vehicles for sale.
                3.     He considered it inappropriate for the Respondent to obtain a dealer
                       license by this development permit application.
                4.     He was also concerned about enforcement issues.
                5.     He suggested that the Board should reconsider deeming this
                       development as a home based business given the Respondent’s
                       intent is to buy and sell vehicles for his own personal use.
SDAB-D-09-173                          3                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                Ms. Nowoselski expressed concerns about the types of vehicles on the
                subject site, what she termed “garbage” vehicles. She felt that these types
                of vehicles would attract undesirable people to the neighbourhood. As
                well, she felt that these vehicles were resulting in the subject site becoming
                an eyesore in the neighbourhood.

                The Board then heard from the Respondent, Dong Yan, who provided the
                following information:

                1.     He has been in Canada for two years.
                2.     The buying and selling of used vehicles is a personal interest which
                       he does three times a year.
                3.     The maximum number of vehicles he would have at any one time
                       would be two vehicles.
                4.     His license, as he understands it, is for the buying and selling of
                       vehicles and there will be no vehicle repairs done on the subject
                       site.
                5.     The vehicles that are for sale will differ from a personal vehicle as
                       they will have dealer plates on the vehicles as opposed to personal
                       license plates.
                6.     The vehicles parked on the driveway belong to the other tenant in
                       the house and have been removed.
                7.     He purchases vehicles from auctions or the wholesale market, has
                       the vehicle safety inspected and drives it home. He only intended to
                       sell these vehicles to personal acquaintances or friends. If someone
                       indicated they were interested in a certain car, he would take the
                       vehicle to the potential customer’s location for a test drive. The
                       only work done out of the subject site would be of an administrative
                       nature.
                8.     There are three residents on the subject site, the owner, a tenant
                       downstairs and Mr. Yan who resides on the main floor.

                Mr. Li, the owner of the subject site, indicated he fully supported the
                application for the development permit and understood that he was
                responsible for assisting Mr. Yan to comply with the conditions relating to
                the development permit.
SDAB-D-09-173                         4                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                In rebuttal, Mr. Baird stated there were still concerns about the number of
                vehicles on the subject site. He felt that when Mr. Li’s family relocates to
                Canada the house could become very congested.

DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the DECISION OF THE
                DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONFIRMED, subject to the following
                additional conditions imposed by the Board:

                1.     The approved development permit will terminate when the
                       Applicant vacates his residency of the premises.
                2.     The Applicant shall not have any more than one (1) vehicle on the
                       subject site relating to the Major Home Based Business at any one
                       time.
                3.     There shall be no vehicle repairs on the subject site related to the
                       Major Home Based Business.
                4.     There shall be no outside storage of vehicles or parts of vehicles
                       related to the Major Home Based Business.
                5.     There shall be no vehicles related to the Major Home Based
                       Business stored in the vicinity of the subject site.
                6.     Any evidence of a breach of the above conditions including outside
                       storage, sales from the subject site, or an excess in the number of
                       vehicles on the subject site will result in the revocation of the
                       Development Permit and a review of the Business License by the
                       Chief License Inspector (Reference Section 23.5)

                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.
SDAB-D-09-173                            5                                  August 28, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      The proposed development, a Major Home Based Business, is a
                           Discretionary Use in the RF1 Zone.
                   2.      The Board accepts evidence that there will be no outside storage,
                           vehicle repair or sales of vehicles from the subject site.
                   3.      With the conditions imposed, the Major Home Based Business will
                           not change the residential character of the dwelling or the
                           immediately adjacent area around the subject site.
                   4.      Based on the above, the Major Home Based Business is appropriate
                           and reasonably compatible for this location.”



          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.
SDAB-D-09-173                              6                                    August 28, 2009

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.



                                                   Mr. C. Thomas, Presiding Officer
                                                   SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                   APPEAL BOARD

cc:   B. Baird
      D. Holt
      E. Kaplinsky
      B. Bennett/K. Shaw
      R. Smith
      W. Brown
      L. Ganton
      S. Gee
      K. Doherty
      L. Fung
      S. Kurup and J. Kurup
      M. Zielinski
      Mr. & Mrs. D. Zbetnoff
      D. Nowoselski
                      Subdivision and                      Office of the City Clerk
                      Development Appeal Board             3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                   DATE: August 28, 2009
P.O. Box 20088                                     APPLICATION NO: 87681923-001
EDMONTON, AB T5W 5E6                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D–09-174

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated July 21, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Construct exterior and interior alterations to a Single Detached House and to operate a Group
Home (maximum occupancy of 10)

on Lot 27, Block 34, Plan RN43, located at 11712 – 93 Street, was heard by the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 13, 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 construct exterior and
                     interior alterations to a Single Detached House and to operate a Group
                     Home (maximum occupancy of 10) located at 11712 – 93 Street NW. The
                     subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density Development Zone and is located
                     within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The approved development
                     permit was appealed by an adjacent property owner.
SDAB-D-09-174                         2                                    August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from the Appellant, Ms. V. Birch who appeared before
                the Board representing a number of neighbourhood residents. She provided
                the following information in support of her appeal:

                1.     She provided a historical background of the immediate area,
                       explaining how, over the past ten years, the neighbourhood has
                       worked to clean up derelict houses, slum landlords, prostitution
                       houses, and unsatisfactory tenants although there are still some
                       problem areas.
                2.     There is a Group Home one block south of the subject site and
                       another Group Home in the next block south of the other Group
                       Home.
                3.     A Women’s Shelter with 24 residents covers a major portion of the
                       eastern side of 93 Street in a building that was formerly a convent.
                4.     The area houses 32 percent of all the subsidized Group Homes in
                       the City.
                5.     Once a site is approved for a Group Home, the use of the site
                       remains a Group Home and there is no control over who operates
                       the site.
                6.     Alberta Avenue is being revitalized at enormous cost in order to
                       create a better business area and family housing. Adding a further
                       Group Home only adds to the problems already existing in the area.
                7.     A Group Home will result in diminished property values on
                       adjacent properties.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Forget, a neighbourhood resident who
                provided the following information:

                1.     He reiterated the concerns voiced by Ms. Birch emphasizing the
                       impact the concentration of Group Homes in the area have on their
                       quality of life.
                2.     A map was provided showing the location of Group Homes, social
                       housing, and experimental housing facilities in the immediate area.
                       There presently is a total of six sites within blocks of the subject
                       site.
                3.     The area is negatively impacted by prostitution, drug sales,
                       violence, robberies and in spite of this, there is only a limited police
                       presence other than responding to crime scenes.
SDAB-D-09-174                         3                                  August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from Mr. Syrnyk who resides in the immediate area.
                He felt that this is another Group Home being brought into an already
                violent social problem area and only adds to those problems.

                Ms. Birch then provided photographs showing homes that were previously
                single family homes and what their current use is. She provided a petition
                containing 106 signatures in opposition to the proposed development.

                Ms. Seaward, another resident of the area, reiterated the concerns that had
                been expressed by her neighbours.

                The Board then heard from the Respondent, Sandra Danco, Executive
                Director of the Edmonton Women’s Shelter Ltd. She provided the
                following information in support of the proposed development:

                1.     The Edmonton Women’s Shelter Ltd. has been established for
                       about 35 years.
                2.     This is not a typical Group Home but rather a temporary shelter for
                       abused women and their children.
                3.     There are only two units in the building, each unit with its own
                       kitchen, bedrooms and dining area and a separate entrance.
                4.     The occupants are not permitted to have vehicles.
                5.     There is staff on-site 24 hours a day plus security cameras for added
                       security.
                6.     They have two other Group Homes in the City and they had not had
                       any complaints from neighbouring property owners.
                7.     They have not solicited support from area residents as attempts are
                       made to keep their presence in the neighbourhood quiet to eliminate
                       any unnecessary problems.
                8.     The average stay could be from three weeks to three months
                       depending on the level of support required by the family and their
                       ability to relocate to a more permanent location.
                9.     They had applied for a Group Home versus a Limited Group Home
                       so they did not have to turn a family away if their numbers
                       exceeded the requirements set out for a Limited Group Home.
                10.    The location of the site and the choice of the particular property
                       included criteria such as easy access to downtown, access to public
                       transit, and proximity to other social services to supplement the
                       work done by the Edmonton Women’s Shelter Ltd.
SDAB-D-09-174                         4                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                11.    The zoning and the ability to acquire affordable units are major
                       reasons for locating to this area and choosing this specific property.
                12.    The possession date for the property is August 31, 2009.
                13.    There is no condition on the purchase relating to permit approval as
                       this proposal is permitted under the current zoning as a
                       Discretionary Use.
                14.    She reiterated that the project and operator must be licenced and
                       approved by Alberta Social Services.
                15.    The proposed renovations will not change the footprint of the
                       building. They include new lower level windows to meet current
                       building code regulations and interior renovations to the heating and
                       air conditioning system. Entrances do not require any alteration as
                       they are in place.
                16.    One bedroom on the main level will be used for staff and office
                       administration.

                The Board also heard from Ms. Lafferty, a member of the Edmonton
                Women’s Shelter Ltd. Board who stated this project is supported by the
                Board and staff of the Edmonton Women’s Shelter. The operations of the
                organization are licensed through the Department of Children’s Social
                Services.

                In rebuttal, Ms. Birch emphasized that what was once single family homes
                were being converted to duplex homes and so increasing the number of
                people in the neighbourhood. Given the LRT expansion, access to
                downtown is more accessible and such a project could be located in another
                area.

                There were concerns expressed with problems that could arise from
                disturbed fathers once the family’s location is known and they would
                pursue their issues with their wife and family. This would only add to the
                violence in the area and on this block specifically. As well, they were
                concerned about the short turnover of tenants, as there would be no
                possibility of familiarization between the tenants and neighbours. As well,
                children residing on the site would be exposed to drugs, prostitution and the
                violence already existing in the area.

                Mr. Forget also commented that two of the Group Homes on the map
                provided were actually not registered as Group Homes, but the 32 percent
                noted are actual registered social housing.
SDAB-D-09-174                           5                                  August 28, 2009




DECISION:

                   that the appeal be DENIED and the DECISION OF THE
                   DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONFIRMED with the following
                   additional conditions:

                   1.     The approval is for a Group Home operated specifically by the
                          Edmonton Women’s Shelter Ltd.
                   2.     There shall be a maximum of two family units in the Group Home,
                          not to exceed ten occupants at any one time.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.     The proposed development, a Group Home, is a Discretionary Use
                          in the RF3 Zone.
                   2.     The subject site provides easy access to public transit and the
                          downtown area, other social services, and English language classes.
                   3.     There was no specific evidence presented to confirm a decrease in
                          property values as a result of the proposed development.
                   4.     The tenure of the building will be a maximum of two families as a
                          transitional living arrangement. Therefore, the use and appearance
                          of the building will be similar to other low-density developments in
                          the immediate area.
                   5.     Based on the above, the development, as proposed, will be
                          appropriate and reasonably compatible with the existing uses and
                          developments in the immediate area.”


            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-09-174                              6                                   August 28, 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.



                                                   Mr. C. Thomas, Presiding Officer
                                                   SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                   APPEAL BOARD

cc:   Ms. Birch
      M. Luchak
      C. Kalchyski
      N. Southwell
      Mr. & Mrs. J. Forget
      R. Syrnyk
      Edmonton Women’s Shelter Ltd. – Attn: Sandra Danco, Executive Director
      Edmonton Women’s Shelter Ltd. – Attn: Jen Lafferty
                      Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                      Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                            1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                            Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                            Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                            Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                    DATE: August 28, 2009
                                                    APPLICATION NO: 87692862-001
4400 Still Creek Drive                              FILE NO.: SDAB-D–09-175
BURNABY, BC V5C 6C6
          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

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

Construct exterior alterations to a Restaurant with a Drive-through Food Service (McDonald’s,
install new customer order display and close order booth).

on Lots 16-20, Block 178, Plan N4000R, located at 8415 – 109 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 13, 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 and with a variance in the orientation of the
                     queuing spaces on the site, an application to construct exterior alterations to
                     a Restaurant with a Drive-through Food Service (McDonald’s, install new
                     customer order display and close order booth). The approved development
                     permit was subsequently appealed by property owners in the area.
SDAB-D-09-175                        2                                 August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board first heard from Ms. Sandilands, representing the Appellant,
                Andross Condominium Corp., who provided the following information in
                support of the appeal:

                1.     Her basic problem with the proposed changes to the adjacent
                       McDonald’s Restaurant had to do with the noise levels produced by
                       a speaker system proposed for ordering food.
                2.     She stated that in discussions with the McDonald’s representative,
                       he was not able to guarantee there would be less noise with the new
                       system than there is presently by using the face-to-face ordering
                       system.
                3.     Residing in the area, she was able to hear even the current voice
                       levels when there is no speaker being used but did not hear the
                       sounds from the third service window on the south side of the
                       restaurant building.

                The Board then heard from Ms. Harvey, a resident of the Andross
                Condominium building who reiterated that the possibility of an increase in
                the restaurant noise if a new speaker system was installed, was
                unacceptable given her proximity to the site.

                The Board then heard from Ms. Heilesen, also representing the Andross
                Condominium Corp., who provided the following information:

                1.     She noted that noise problems do not only relate to the ordering
                       system but also to the early morning noise of garbage trucks,
                       vehicles in the drive-through, and after the restaurant is closed,
                       vehicles and individuals in the parking lot combined with fights and
                       arguments.
                2.     The present location of the ordering booth on the northeast side of
                       the building is a better location as it is not directly opposite the
                       condominium building. The new location will, in her opinion, with
                       a speaker system increase the noise problem because of facing the
                       condominium development.
                3.     In 2002, when McDonald’s applied to open the restaurant, the
                       permit allowed only face-to-face ordering through windows.
                4.     The present hours of operation from the McDonald’s drive-though
                       is between 6:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and
                       between 6:00 a.m. to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. They
                       were proposing changing the morning opening from 6:00 a.m. to
                       5:00 a.m.
SDAB-D-09-175                        3                                 August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                5.     The height of the adjacent condominium is four storeys.
                6.     The new microphone and speaker system will, in fact, be moved
                       slightly closer to the condominium building and located on the east
                       side of the restaurant further south than the present location.
                7.     McDonald’s is proposing a six foot high noise attenuation wall and
                       there is already is a six foot fence between the McDonald’s property
                       and the condominium building.

                The Board then heard from the second Appellant, Mr. Minaker, a
                neighbouring property owner, who offered the following information:

                1.     There are two active windows being currently used - the first is an
                       order and pay window and the second is a pick-up window with one
                       facing east and one facing north.
                2.     Prior to the McDonald’s Restaurant, there was a Dairy Queen
                       restaurant on the subject site which used a speaker system although
                       he assumed it was an older system than that proposed by the
                       Respondent. He noted he could hear virtually every word spoken
                       on that speaker system.
                3.     McDonald’s took over the property from the Dairy Queen in 2002.
                       When the permit was issued for the McDonald’s restaurant, one of
                       the conditions imposed was that no speaker system be used.
                4.     Based on his personal experience, there is a tendency for an
                       individual to speak louder while using a speaker system as
                       individuals do not appear to understand what is being said and, as
                       well, have to adjust to vehicle noise.

                The Board then heard from Mr. Horst, Real Estate Manager, McDonald’s
                Restaurants of Canada Limited, representing the Respondent. He provided
                the following information in support of the proposed development:

                1.     Plans were proposed for the new speaker system and drive-though.
                2.     The reasoning behind the change from a face-to-face order and pay
                       system to the newer system being used nationally was that the
                       speaker system used would be connected to the kitchen by
                       computers and as soon as the order is taken, the food is being
                       cooked. This is compared to the old system where your order had
                       been pre-cooked and prepared from warming trays. With the
                       proposed speakers, the kitchen starts to cook when the order is
                       placed.
SDAB-D-09-175                        4                                 August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                3.    The restaurant requires more time to cook meals under the new
                      system and for that the speaker system will slightly increase order
                      time between ordering and pickup.
                4.    The new system automatically controls the noise levels adjusting
                      for ambient noise so that, for example, in the evenings when noise
                      levels are lower, the machine will lower the decibels of the speaker
                      itself and control the volume during the day.
                5.    McDonald’s studies, at a distance of 16 feet on the old system of
                      face-to-face ordering, found the decibel level to be 60 whereas with
                      the new order system, the decibel level is between 36 to 40 decibels
                      which is similar to the decibel level of a normal conversation level.
                6.    The speakers will be located approximately 2 ½ feet above the
                      foundation and the microphone is approximately four feet above
                      ground
                7.    He reiterated that McDonald’s is building a sound attenuation fence
                      six feet high and 30 feet long between the restaurant and the
                      condominium.
                8.    He advised that the materials that outline the decibel levels under
                      Figure 1 from the manual, appear to show that the 60 decibel level
                      projects outwards in excess of 30 feet but less than 40 feet from the
                      speaker.
                9.    He explained to the Board and read from a City of Winnipeg letter
                      that their research showed that when 30 feet from the speakers the
                      decibel level was at 35 which is basically the sound of a soft
                      whisper. With the old order system, the decibel level would have
                      been 60.
                10.   In response to questioning, he advised that the materials that outline
                      the decibel levels under Figure 1 from the manual specifying
                      decibel output, appear to show that the 60 decibel level projects
                      outwards in excess of 30 feet but less than 40 feet from the speaker.
                11.   There have been no studies on how sound levels rise.
                12.   The separation distance between the speakers and the adjacent
                      condominium could not be less than 80 feet given there are two 20-
                      foot parking stalls, a 24 foot drive aisle and then 15 feet to 20 feet
                      between the drive aisle and building.
                13.   All fast food chains are using some type of speaker system for
                      ordering.
                14.   Based on his personal observations, he did not see that there was
                      excessive noise from the type of system proposed.
SDAB-D-09-175                          5                                 August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                In rebuttal, Ms. Sandilands made the following comments:

                1.      She asked if McDonald’s could guarantee the sound levels and was
                        advised they could not.
                2.      She questioned whether or not the separation distance of 80 feet
                        indicated by McDonald’s is correct.
                3.      She felt the fence that McDonald’s is building at six feet is well
                        below the level of the elevation of the residences in the
                        condominium development.
                4.      She also disputed McDonald’s comments that this particular
                        restaurant is not a busy restaurant.

                Also in rebuttal, Mr. Minaker questioned what good a noise attenuation
                fence would be, given the wind carries noise levels. He felt McDonald’s
                did not produce any scientific evidence as to sound levels. As well, the
                Respondent could not guarantee sound levels.


DECISION:
                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed Drive-In Food Service is a Discretionary Use in the
                        CB1 Zone.
                2.      There is evidence from the Appellants that the current system of
                        face-to-face communication can still be heard by the neighbours in
                        spite of their being no loudspeakers used.
                3.      Voice level used on speaker systems tends to be increased beyond
                        normal voice levels from the experience of one of the Appellants.
                4.      The Respondent did not satisfy the Board that there would not be an
                        increase in the noise with the use of the proposed speaker system.
                5.      The Board did not consider arguments relating to noise created by
                        the day-to-day activities of the restaurant use. The Board notes that
                        a restaurant use is a permitted use and bases its decision solely on
                        the discretionary nature of the drive-through use and the noise
                        associated with the use of an outside speaker system.
SDAB-D-09-175                             6                                  August 28, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                    6.     Based on the above, the Board finds that noise that will be produced
                           as a result of the drive-through use and an associated speaker
                           system will have an adverse affect on the adjacent properties and as
                           such, is not appropriate or reasonably compatible with the uses and
                           developments in the immediate area.”




          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.
SDAB-D-09-175                            7                                 August 28, 2009


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.



                                                Mr. C. Thomas, Presiding Officer
                                                SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                APPEAL BOARD

cc:   Andross Condominium Corp. – Attn: J. Heilesen, Secretary Treasurer
      P. Kaszor and concerned neighbours
      R. Minaker
      J. Harvey
      S. Sandilands
                      Subdivision and                      Office of the City Clerk
                      Development Appeal Board             3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                   DATE: August 28, 2009
11303 – 63 Street NW                               APPLICATION NO: 86695541-004
EDMONTON, AB T5W 4E7                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D–09-176

           NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated July 20, 2009 , from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:

Construct a Detached Garage (9.14 metres by 9.14 metres) with a Garage Suite above grade

on Lot 1, Block 6, Plan 4065AE, located at 11301 – 63 Street NW, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 13, 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 construct a Detached
                     Garage (9.14 metres by 9.14 metres) with a Garage Suite above grade
                     located at 11301 – 63 Street NW. The approved development permit has
                     been appealed by separate property owners in the area..

                     The first Appellant, Mr. Downey was not in attendance and advised that he
                     wished to proceed by way of his written submission. The Board Officer
                     read the submission into the record. The submission included the
                     following:

                     1.     There were parking concerns as a result of limited parking in the
                            area, as parking is only allowed on one side of 63 Street.
SDAB-D-09-176                          2                                     August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                2.     Additional parking problems are caused by a church located in the
                       vicinity, a group home and a bed and breakfast operation and adult
                       children with vehicles. The addition of the proposed garage suite
                       will only contribute to higher than average parking and traffic
                       issues and increase safety issues.
                3.     The 1985 Highlands Neighbourhood Planning Study identified
                       issues which are still significant, including the lack of parking,
                       increased traffic, sale of homes to younger couples and developers,
                       and new housing being developed that is out of scale and character
                       with adjacent housing and replacing older homes.
                4.     This Study was consolidated in July 2006 which shows the current
                       validity of the Study.
                5.     The primary focus in the Study is the preservation of the
                       community character and the RF1 Zone permitting single detached
                       housing and in addition, semi-detached and duplex housing as a
                       Discretionary Use only on sites abutting commercially zoned sites
                       or apartment sites.
                6.     There are indications that the area is becoming anything but single
                       family low density development due to the type of developments
                       being permitted in the area.
                7.     He anticipated that the proposed garage with a garage suite is not in
                       character with the existing home or the character of the community.
                8.     In his opinion, having two detached housing units was contradictory
                       to the RF1 Zone and the attempts to maintain Highlands as a single
                       family low density community.

                The Board then heard from the second Appellant, Mr. Chrapko. He
                provided a petition in opposition to the proposed development and two
                additional letters of opposition that basically reiterated similar concerns set
                out by Mr. Downey. He also provided the following information in support
                of the appeal:

                1.     He provided the Board with information regarding his long term
                       association with the Highlands community.
                2.     He agreed in principal with the submissions made by Mr. Downey.
                3.     His primary argument was that since 1985 non-conforming uses in
                       the Highlands area provided a more desirable stability to the
                       community.
                4.     Recently Planners and Council have regressed and are allowing
                       undesirable developments similar to those existing prior to 1986.
SDAB-D-09-176                       3                                   August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                5.    The community had an understanding with Council, as identified in
                      the documentation appended to Mr. Chrapko’s written submission
                      that Planners and Development Officers would abide by the land
                      use plan developed as though it was an area redevelopment plan.
                6.    The Planners and Development Officers have not done that and so
                      have breached the trust of the Highlands community.
                7.    The demographics of the community show that most of the
                      residents are between 30 years of age and 59 years of age who are
                      undertaking renovations on their properties in the belief the area
                      will remain a stable single family residential neighbourhood.
                8.    He believed that recent Permitted and Discretionary Uses that
                      Council approved are layering or piling on of land uses on existing
                      land use plans and are illegal and should not be allowed. If they
                      persist, they will diminish, degrade, and eventually the close-knit
                      vibrant and caring community will be gone.

                The Board then heard from the third Appellant, Ms. Splittgerber who
                provided the following information in support of her appeal:

                1.    Her primary argument was that she has a carefully cared for
                      property containing a high level of gardening and foliage and the
                      proposed development will block her view and reduce the sunlight
                      penetration to the garden diminishing her property value.
                2.    When she purchased the property 13 years ago, she was assured that
                      the area would remain RF1 zoning and that nothing more would be
                      built on the adjoining property.
                3.    A realtor’s report providing an opinion of value which did not
                      identify any monetary value, monetary loss, and is unsigned with no
                      professional designation or authority of the writer was provided.
                4.    The realtor’s report stated that the proposed development, according
                      to his understanding, would be an oversized garage with a second
                      floor suite which would be too imposing for the neighbourhood and
                      would block the view of the house next door and so would reflect
                      on the price of the adjacent property in the event it is sold.
                5.    She had not seen the plans for the proposed development.
SDAB-D-09-176                         4                                    August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from Mr. Johannsen who resides four lots north of
                the subject site and who reiterated concerns about parking. He was
                concerned about the future use of the subject site, including intensified use
                for parking. The proposed location of the garage will, in his opinion, create
                a hazard for vehicles exiting the rear lane. This hazard would be made
                more difficult by vehicles parking on the driveway in front of the garage.

                The Board then heard from the Respondents, R. Bailey and M. Runnett,
                who had previously provided a written submission, a copy of which is on
                file. The Respondents then summarized their submission providing the
                following information in support of the proposed development:

                1.     They have made every attempt to be extremely sensitive and careful
                       in the design of the proposed development by having it
                       professionally designed, compatible and in keeping with the
                       neighbourhood, and suitable to the period of the primary residence.
                2.     They were conscious of the parking requirements in the design and
                       had provided adequate parking for the proposed garage suite and
                       the homeowner. There are already rental homes and units in the
                       community, including prominent homes that have office space
                       above garages and photographs were provided in support of that,
                       copies of which are on file.
                3.     They had support for the proposed development from some adjacent
                       neighbours who feel that the proposed development will improve
                       the subject site and enhance the immediately adjacent
                       neighbourhood and would be good for the community.
                4.     The proposed garage suite will be used by the property owners for
                       their enjoyment and as living space or as rental space restricted to
                       one tenant and any rental agreement will stipulate that the tenant is
                       restricted to one vehicle which shall be parked inside the garage.
                5.     No adverse noise is expected with only one tenant residing in the
                       suite.
                6.     The proposed development has maximized the distance to 20.7 feet
                       from the side property line so as to eliminate any sunshadowing in
                       the neighbour’s yard. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west
                       and should not affect the adjacent property.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Chrapko identified that in the original Highlands Plan they
                had been instrumental in changing RA7 Zones to RF1 Zones.
SDAB-D-09-176                          5                                    August 28, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)


                Also in rebuttal, Ms. Splittgerber reiterated her previous concerns.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be DENIED and the DECISION                        OF   THE
                DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONFIRMED

                The following conditions were imposed by the Development Authority:

                1.     The height of the accessory building shall not exceed 5.65 metres as
                       per the height definition of Section 6.1(35) of the Edmonton Zoning
                       Bylaw 12800.
                2.     Only one of a Secondary Suite, Garage Suite or Garden Suite may
                       be developed in conjunction with a principal Dwelling.
                3.     Notwithstanding subsection 6.1(37) of this Bylaw, the number of
                       unrelated persons occupying a Garage Suite or Garden Suite shall
                       not exceed three.
                4.     A Garage Suite or Garden Suite shall not be allowed within the
                       same Site containing a Group Home or Limited Group Home, or a
                       Major Home Based Business and an associated principal Dwelling,
                       unless the Garage Suite or Garden Suite is an integral part of a Bed
                       and Breakfast Operation in the case of a Major Home Based
                       Business.
                5.     A Garage Suite or Garden Suite shall not be subject to separation
                       from the principal Dwelling through a condominium conversion or
                       subdivision.

                Note: The existing driveway access off 113 Avenue shall not be widened or
                altered.

                Note: A separate curb crossing permit shall be applied for if you wish to
                widen, alter or reconstruct the existing access. For application details,
                please contact the Planning and Development Department, Val Gordychuk
                at 496-6733 (Section 1210 and 1211 of the Traffic Bylaw No. 5590).
SDAB-D-09-176                          6                                   August 28, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                  The Board finds the following:

                  1.     A Garage Suite, on a corner lot in the RF1 Zone, is a Discretionary
                         Use.
                  2.     No variances are required for the construction of this specific
                         development.
                  3.     The Highlands Planning Study is not a statutory document.
                  4.     The siting of the proposed development is sensitive to the adjacent
                         neighbourhood and has been developed with sufficient space
                         between the two properties.
                  5.     The Board accepts the evidence that the proposed development will
                         not impede sunlight penetration onto the immediately adjacent
                         property.
                  6.     The setback requirements conform with the Edmonton Zoning
                         Bylaw requirements and do not support that there would be a safety
                         issue regarding the siting of the proposed development.
                  7.     The creation of a two-car garage and parking pad (driveway) may
                         ameliorate any parking issues in the immediate area.
                  8.     The addition of the Garage Suite, which would be rented to one
                         tenant with the requirement that any vehicle be parked in the
                         garage, will not materially affect parking or traffic in area.
                  9.     Photographs submitted show the proposed development would be
                         characteristic to the existing built form within the immediate area.
                  10.    That the development breaches prior commitments is not
                         demonstrated by a statutory plan nor does it recognize that Council
                         has adopted the provision for Garage Suites in specific locations.
                  11.    Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
                         interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially
                         interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                         parcels of land.”


          IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained separately
     from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
     Street, Edmonton.
SDAB-D-09-176                              7                                    August 28, 2009

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.



                                                   Mr. C. Thomas, Presiding Officer
                                                   SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                   APPEAL BOARD

cc:   M. Chrapko
      C. Splittgerber
      S. Downey
      L. Gray
      Q. Johannsen
      R. Polziehn