Docstoc

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: January 30, 2009
16508 – 111 Avenue NW                               APPLICATION NO: 79510835-006
EDMONTON, AB T5M 3V8                                FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-010

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated December 16, 2008, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an addition to the rear of a Single Detached House to attach the Detached Garage

on Lot 33, Block 23, Plan 6450KS, located at 9236 – 73 Street, was heard by the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on January 15, 2009. 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 the rear of a Single
                      Detached House to attach the Detached Garage, located at 9236 – 73
                      Street. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone.
                      The application was refused because of a deficiency in the minimum
                      required Rear Yard, that being 40 percent of the Site Depth.

                      There were no letters of opposition or support received relating to the
                      proposed development.

                      The Board heard from Ed Hammermeister, representing the Appellant,
                      Graphtec Design. The property owners, Barry and Shauna Wiedman were
                      also in attendance. Mr. Hammermeister provided the Board with a written
                      submission, a copy of which is on file, which included a site plan, letters
                      of support from nine adjacent neighbours and the community league
                      together with an artist’s rendering showing the proposed development in
                      its entirety. It is of a Single Detached House, a three-car garage and the
                      planned link between the house and garage. He also provided the
                      following information:
SDAB-D-09-010                        2                                  January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                1.    All existing buildings on the property were to be demolished and a
                      new home, three-car garage, and the link attaching these buildings
                      were to be built.
                2.    The proposed house represents less than the 28 percent maximum
                      allowable site coverage for a principal building and when included
                      with the proposed garage and the linkage, the maximum total site
                      coverage for the site would remain under the allowable 40 percent.
                3.    The proposed linkage between the house and garage is 3.66 metres
                      wide and 6.01 metres long.
                4.    In his opinion, the link when completed, would not have a
                      noticeable impact on the view of neighbouring property owners
                      and drew the Board’s attention to the artist’s rendering previously
                      submitted.
                5.    There were no negative comments in the nine letters from adjacent
                      neighbours or the president of the community league.
                6.    He stated that in discussions with the Development Officer, she
                      advised she was unable to grant the variance being requested in
                      this matter due to the deficiency of 15.88 metres in the rear yard
                      requirement and an appeal should be made to the Subdivision and
                      Development Appeal Board.
                7.    He reviewed the plans supplied for the overall development but
                      believed the proposed link between the garage and house would
                      be, and as also expressed by neighbours, an attractive addition to
                      the neighbourhood.

                In response to questions from the Board, the Appellants provided the
                following:

                1.    As to why two neighbouring properties adjacent to the site, namely
                      9243 - 74 Street and 9239 – 74 Street, were not included in their
                      neighbourhood canvass, it was advised that the property owners
                      made attempts to reach all of the neighbouring property owners but
                      were unable to get to everyone as a result of severe winter weather.
                2.    The Development Officer had suggested that the new home and
                      garage be applied for in stages given that if they applied for the
                      entire development, including the linkage, the application would
                      not be approved due to the deficiency in the rear yard requirement.
                3.    The detached garage and home have been approved and permits
                      have been issued and they now wish to apply for the addition
                      between the house and garage.
SDAB-D-09-010                          3                                  January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                4.      They had spoken with the President of the Community League and
                        it was their belief, under the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, that
                        the President spoke for the Community League and approved the
                        proposed development.
                5.      The house, the garage and connecting addition between the house
                        and garage are one-storey developments.
                6.      In referring to photograph SDAB-D-09-010b from the file, he
                        reiterated that the home, garage, and shed shown in the
                        photographs will be demolished to build the new development.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the deficiency of 15.88 metres in the minimum Rear Yard requirement,
                that being 40 percent of the Site Depth be permitted



REASONS FOR DECISION:


                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development is an addition to a Permitted Use in the
                        RF1 Zone.
                2.      No letters of objections were received but nine letters of support
                        were received from neighbouring property owners and the
                        President of the Community League.
                3.      The Board is satisfied that the massing effect of the entire
                        proposed development is mitigated by the use of windows in the
                        proposed development under consideration in this appeal, the
                        design of the entire proposed development, being a one-storey
                        structure, and the lot being such a large, irregular-shaped lot.
                4.      The proposed development, in its entirety, is below the 40 percent
                        maximum total allowable Site Coverage.
                5.      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.”
SDAB-D-09-010                             4                                   January 30, 2009



           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-09-010                               5                                   January 30, 2009

        (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-09-010                             6                                   January 30, 2009

      (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. L. Parish, Chair
                                                  SUBDIVISION AND            DEVELOPMENT
                                                  APPEAL BOARD

cc:   Barry and Shawna Weidman
                     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: January 30, 2009
200, 11456 – Jasper Avenue NW                     APPLICATION NO: 80925733-001
EDMONTON, AB T5K 0M1                              FILE NO.:SDAB-D-09-011

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

These appeals dated December 22 and December 23, 2008, from the decision of the
Development Authority for permission to:

Construct a rear, 8.64 metres by 9.9 metres two storey addition to an existing Single Detached
House

on Lot 396, Block 7, Plan 7540AH, located at 11048 – 107 Street, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on January 15, 2009. The decision of the
Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard two appeals of the decision of the Development
                     Authority to approve with conditions and variances an application to
                     construct a rear, 8.64 metres by 9.9 metres two storey addition to an
                     existing Single Detached House, located at 11048 – 107 Street. The
                     subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The appeals
                     are based on concerns regarding the use of the addition, a lack of parking,
                     excessive garbage and a negative impact on property values.

                     At the outset of the hearing, the Board addressed an issue of jurisdiction
                     relating to whether one of the two appeals filed respecting the proposed
                     development was filed outside of the allowable 14-day appeal period.
                     The reasons for the date of filing the appeal were outlined in the written
                     submission of Leealayhe Sivsammye, who was not present at the hearing,
                     and read into the record by the Board Officer.
SDAB-D-09-011                         2                                  January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from the various parties relating to the issue of the
                filing of the appeal. Mr. Patrick So, representing the Respondent, objected
                to the acceptance of the appeal.


DECISION:

                The Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”



REASON FOR DECISION:

                1.     Based on the written evidence provided, the Board applied the
                       provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act and Section
                       686(1)(a)(i) of the Municipal Government Act, and finds that the
                       appeal was filed within the allowable 14 days.”


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                “The written submission filed by Ms. Sivsammye was read into the record:

                1.     She questioned the size of the addition which she felt would block
                       sunlight to her property and the small bungalow on her property.
                2.     An application for a Major Home Based Business on the site was
                       withdrawn after objections were filed to that application. She was
                       concerned the proposed development was for the same
                       development.
                3.     In her opinion, the current use of the building was more that of a
                       factory type operation rather than a single detached house and
                       should be located elsewhere.
                4.     She stated that the use altered the property and effectively reduces
                       her property value.
                5.     She also expressed a concern about noise levels.

                A copy of the written submission is on file.
SDAB-D-09-011                         3                                  January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from Valden Palm, a member of the Camelot Court
                Condominium Board. Mr. Palm was accompanied by Linda Vickery and
                Vern Hansen, both residents of the development at 11043 – 108 Street,
                located southwest of the site.

                Mr. Palm provided the Board with a written submission, a copy of which
                is on file, and expanded on his submission with the following information:

                1.     He felt there was some question about the home based business on
                       the site given that the Development Officer used the phrase “shall
                       not be used as an additional dwelling unit nor for the exclusive use
                       of a Home Based Business” when imposing conditions on the
                       approved development permit.
                2.     Although he was aware that the Development Officer had minor
                       variance powers in the case of a non-conforming building, he
                       questioned how one could draw conclusions without reviewing any
                       detailed drawings of the existing house.
                3.     Given that a Minor Home Based Business was a secondary use to
                       the residential use rather than a primary use, he queried as to
                       whether the operation was intended to be more of a primary use on
                       the property.
                4.     He had no concerns with the variances that had been approved but
                       questioned the overall intent of the proposed development.
                5.     A freezer truck comes to the property on a regular basis, about
                       twice a week.
                6.     He had concerns that the proposed development implied an
                       expansion to the existing business resulting in a greater lack of
                       garbage maintenance and air quality.
                7.     He owns four units in the building to the southwest of the site.

                The Board then heard from Linda Vickery who advised the Board that she
                has observed a number of individuals visiting the property on a regular
                basis, whom she felt were working on the site.

                The Board then heard from Vernon Hansen who advised the Board that,
                from his observations, the existing garage serves as a refrigeration unit.
                He confirmed that photographs provided to the Board were taken on
                January 6, 2009. He also expressed concern about compliance issues and
                the enforcement of those issues.
SDAB-D-09-011                         4                                  January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)


                The Board Chair explained that issues such as those relating to an existing
                Major or Minor Home Based Business on a site were bylaw enforcement
                issues and should be taken up with the Bylaw Enforcement Department
                rather than through a development permit appeal.

                The Board then heard from Patrick So, representing the property owner,
                Wai Wong who was in attendance. Martin To, representing Raimond
                Fung Architects was also present at the hearing. The following
                information was provided:

                1.     Mr. Wong has lived on the site for nine years with his wife and
                       son.
                2.     The existing house is a single detached house with two bedrooms
                       and Mr. Wong hired an architect to prepare drawings to increase
                       the habitable space of his home.
                3.     He confirmed that there is a Minor Home Based Business on the
                       site which produces spring rolls and wontons. These items are not
                       cooked on the site but are prepared for freezer purposes only.
                4.     They only use the basement of the existing house for their small
                       business and there was no intention to use any of the addition for
                       any type of commercial use.
                5.     Mr. Wong owns a mini-van which he uses to deliver the frozen
                       product they prepare and this vehicle does not add to the traffic
                       issues in the neighbourhood.
                6.     He confirmed that there is a delivery of frozen meat to the site
                       twice a week.
                7.     Mr. Wong does have one or two part-time workers that come to the
                       home by way of public transit. These individuals are, for the most
                       part, relatives and provide childcare for Mr. Wong’s son and, on
                       occasion, assist in the preparation of food.
                8.     As to the maintenance of the property, he advised that Mr. Wong is
                       working to improve the property. A window in the basement
                       currently covered by wood will be replaced, the front fence will be
                       repaired and after the addition is completed, a garbage enclosure
                       will be built to alleviate problems with the garbage being strewn
                       across the rear of the property.
SDAB-D-09-011                          5                                   January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                9.     Preparations to build the proposed addition have begun and a
                       concrete slab has been poured which is currently covered by a
                       canopy to control the temperature required for concrete curing.
                       There will not be a basement under the addition.
                10.    The architectural drawings show a door on the addition that has
                       been drawn in by hand. This insertion was approved by the
                       architect and a City representative and done as there was no time to
                       change the drawings before submitting them to the City.
                11.    The entrance was changed at the request of the Development
                       Officer as the original plans showed two separate buildings. The
                       entrance to the addition is now a stairwell going to the addition and
                       another stairwell down to the basement of the existing house. The
                       addition is to be built in accordance with the regulations set out in
                       the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw and will not be higher than the
                       existing building.
                12.    The proposed development will be a family/recreation room and a
                       recreational room. There are no plans to put in a kitchen.
                13.    Mr. So confirmed that photographs submitted were taken at some
                       point during January, 2009.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Palm expressed doubts as to the intended use of the
                proposed addition as it made no sense to have a separate entrance to the
                proposed development and questioned the hand-drawn door on the
                architectural drawings. He explained that there is restricted parking on the
                street so individuals going to the property go to the back of the property to
                gain access to the development.

                The Board also heard from Anne Romanow who resides at 11030 – 107
                Street. She noted she was appearing in support of the appeal and is an
                area resident concerned about the proposed development.

                Ms. Romanow questioned why such a large two-storey addition was
                required to a single family dwelling. She noted that residents at the
                seniors residence to the south of the site have confirmed that individuals
                come to the site, as many as three at a time by way of the rear entrance and
                wondered why they would be going to the rear door if they were there for
                childcare. She also expressed concerns about the general maintenance of
SDAB-D-09-011                          6                                  January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                the buildings on the site and property, especially snow removal. In her
                opinion, if they did not follow the minor bylaw requirements she was
                concerned what their intentions were with this addition. She queried why
                the family needed two family/recreation rooms making it inconvenient to
                have to go through the new addition to the garage to access the
                refrigeration unit there.

                Ms. Romanow stated that her residence did not directly face the site but
                some residents in her building did and had questioned the activity on the
                site.

                Mr. So, in rebuttal to Ms. Romanow’s submission explained that access to
                the site was usually through the rear door given vehicle parking on 107
                Street had restricted hours.


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 an addition to a Permitted Use in the
                        RF1 Zone.
                2.      The existing house is non-conforming within Section 643 of the
                        Municipal Government Act. Section 643(5)(c) allows the Board to
                        approve an enlargement, addition, or structural alteration to a non-
                        conforming building in accordance with variance powers set out in
                        Section 11 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                3.      The proposed addition does not extend the non-conformities of the
                        existing house as there will be no basement development and the
                        north side yard will be 1.2 metres.
SDAB-D-09-011                             7                                   January 30, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   4.      The size of the existing principal building is less than the
                           maximum 28 percent allowable site coverage and with the
                           proposed addition the total site coverage will be below the
                           allowable 40 percent.
                   5.      The proposed two-storey addition complies with the present bylaw
                           regulations regarding side yard setbacks, height and allowable
                           elevation from grade.
                   6.      The imposition of the condition by the Development Officer
                           relating to the non-use of the development for the purposes of the
                           home based business, addresses the concerns of the Appellant
                           regarding the operation of the Minor Home Based Business on the
                           property.
                   7.      The Board acknowledges the concerns expressed by neighbours
                           immediately north of the site regarding the impact of the proposed
                           development on sunlight and massing but notes that the proposed
                           development is in full compliance with regulations set out in the
                           Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                   8.      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. 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.
SDAB-D-09-011                             8                                  January 30, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (3)    On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in
            the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave to
            appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law of
            sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance of
            success.
SDAB-D-09-011                               9                                   January 30, 2009


        (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).

        (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. L. Parish, Chair
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND            DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD

cc:     Camelot Court Condominium Association –Attn: Valden Palm
        Ms. Lealayhe Sivsammye
        Anne Romanow
        Linda Vickery
        Vern Hansen
        Wai Sang
        Patrick So
                      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: January 30, 2009
9704 – 106 Street NW                                APPLICATION NO: 80820530-001
EDMONTON, AB T5K 1B6                                FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-012

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated December 17, 2008, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an addition (add one floor – 4 suites) to an existing Apartment building (increase from
12 units to 16 units)

on Lot 102, Block 4, Plan NB, located at 9722 – 104 Street, was heard by the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on January 15, 2009. 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 with variances an application to construct an addition (add one
                      floor – 4 suites) to an existing Apartment building (increase from 12 units
                      to 16 units), located at 9722 – 104 Street. The subject site is zoned HDR
                      High Density Residential. The approved Development Permit was
                      subsequently appealed by two adjacent property owners.

                      The Board heard from Gary Smith, owner of a condominium unit in a
                      building immediately north of the site. Mr. Smith provided the following:

                      1.     His condominium unit overlooks the site of the proposed
                             development.
                      2.     Although his unit is currently a rental unit, he plans to reside there
                             in the future and feels that the view will be lost as a result of the
                             proposed development and significantly affect the value of his
                             property.
SDAB-D-09-012                         2                                   January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                3.     In his opinion, sunlight and air movement to his unit will be lost as
                       a result of the proposed development.
                4.     He also expressed concerns for his privacy given the building is
                       very close to his building and there are windows in the proposed
                       development that face his building.
                5.     There is limited parking available in his building. He noted that
                       the terrain adjacent to the area buildings is rather steep and
                       requires people to use their vehicles.

                In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Smith explained that when
                he purchased his property approximately 1 ½ years ago, the subject
                building was next door to his building and had been there for some time.
                He also knew that the area was a high density housing area. However, he
                had not anticipated an increase in height on the subject building. He
                reiterated that vehicle parking was a problem in the area but had not
                received any complaints related to parking from his tenant through the
                management group.

                The Board then heard from Allan Wasnea, representing the Respondent,
                Rockwood Management. Mr. Wasnea provided the Board with a written
                submission containing photographs and plans, a copy of which is on file.
                He also provided the following information:

                1.     He referred to his Exhibits No.3 and No.7 and noted the
                       Appellant’s condominium overlooks the roof of the subject
                       building.
                2.     He indicated that the proposed height of the development was
                       substantially lower than the maximum height permitted in the
                       zone, being only 25 percent of the allowable height of 45 metres
                       and referenced Exhibit No.5.
                3.     He referred to several other high residential buildings in the
                       immediate area. He also noted that the fence to the north is
                       actually greater than 1.85 metres in height and the residents in the
                       subject building have to deal with that.
                4.     In addition they have to face a 12 foot high wall to the north which
                       is overwhelming.
                5.     He suggested that the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw does not protect
                       sight lines.
SDAB-D-09-012                       3                                    January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                6.    He indicated that residents on the top floor of the subject building
                      will lose their south facing view when Abbey Lane builds a
                      proposed 52 metre high building on the property immediately to
                      the south.

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

                1.    There is a surplus of parking spaces, even with the four additional
                      suites proposed. Tenants are not using all the available parking
                      spaces and there are, in fact, five vacant tandem parking spaces.
                      He noted that if tandem spaces were required, tenants willing to
                      share keys would be selected to use them. To date, there had not
                      been any demand for this.
                2.    In addition to the surplus parking spaces on the site, there was
                      additional parking across the rear lane and he knew of three
                      buildings in the area that had vacant parking spaces so did not feel
                      there was a serious parking issue in the immediate area.
                3.    The subject building is adjacent to an open lot where people are
                      presently parking but a high-rise building is going to be built by
                      Abbey Lane Homes on that site.
                4.    The current number of parking spaces is adequate for the subject
                      building even though the number of parking spaces is not as many
                      as required under the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                5.    The average residency for tenants in the subject building is two to
                      three years.
                6.    There is on-street parking available in front of the building without
                      parking meters. There is not a problem obtaining on-street parking
                      during the evening hours but typically there is no on-street parking
                      available during the day.
                7.    He did not know about any conditions applied to the building
                      previously. In reviewing the file, the Board advised that any
                      previous development conditions referred to building regulations
                      and not parking.
SDAB-D-09-012                             4                                 January 30, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CON TINUED)

                   In rebuttal, Mr. Smith referred to Mr. Wasnea’s Exhibits No.3 and No.7.
                   The balconies depicted were not quite correct given there are currently no
                   balconies present on the subject building. He had expected a large
                   building to replace the subject building in the future and that it would be
                   set back further from his building. He stated that his main objections
                   related to the close proximity of the subject building to his building and
                   the potential for parking issues arising in the immediate area.


DECISION:

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


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                   The Board finds the following:

                   1.      Apartment Housing is a Permitted Use in the HDR Zone.
                   2.      The proposed development will still be below the allowable
                           building height in the HDR Zone.
                   3.      The Board accepts the evidence provided by the Respondent that
                           parking is not a problem in the area.
                   4.      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. 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.
SDAB-D-09-012                             5                                  January 30, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (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.
SDAB-D-09-012                               6                                  January 30, 2009

        (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).

        (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. L. Parish, Chair
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND            DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
cc:     Mr. Smith

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:9/7/2011
language:English
pages:21