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
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                   DATE: September 18, 2009
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 86623879-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-161


          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 On-premises Freestanding Sign (Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence &
Logo)

on Lot 1, Block 11, Plan 0326122, located at 949 Rutherford Road SW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 12, 2009 and
September 3, 2009. The decision of the Board was as follows:

August 12, 2009 hearing:

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 On-premises Freestanding Sign
                     (Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence & Logo), located at 949 –
                     Rutherford Road SW. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment
                     Zone. The application was refused because of an excess in the maximum
                     allowable Height for a Freestanding On-premises Sign.

                     The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to
                     the proposed development.
SDAB-D-09-161                         2                              September 18, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board heard from Mr. Brown, representing the Appellant, Landale
                Signs & Neon Ltd. Mr. Brown made the following points:

                1. He provided the Board with a Site Plan, marked Exhibit A, showing
                   that the sign will be moved from the northwest corner to the centre of
                   the subject site with the sign facing Rutherford Road SW.
                2. He was unsure of the exact location but estimated that it would be
                   placed 20 feet inside the front property line.
                3. He is representing the Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence, a
                   newer development consisting of 136 units, which extends over an
                   area of more than one hectare.
                4. The Rutherford area is a newly developed area.
                5. The sign was designed for the scale, size of the development, and the
                   site in which it is located, which is the reason it was designed higher
                   than what is permitted under the Zoning Bylaw.
                6. If the sign is lower it will not be as useful for visitors and emergency
                   vehicles to identify and locate the residence.
                7. The residence currently has no permanent identification signs.
                8. The face of the sign with the wording will be parallel to Rutherford
                   Road and not visible from the residents to the north. In his opinion the
                   residents on the same side of Rutherford Road in either direction will
                   not be able to see the sign because it will be set back from the front
                   property line and obscured by the existing buildings.
                9. The sign will have no internal or external illumination other than the
                   illumination from the parking lot in which it is being placed.

                In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Brown made the following
                points:

                1. The additional height of the sign is intended to match the scale of the
                   property and if the height was reduced it would compress the copy on
                   the sign making it less readable and useful for identification.
                2. The width and overall area of the sign would have to be reduced if the
                   height was lowered.
                3. It is their intention to balance the size of the sign to the scale of the
                   property.

                The Board then heard from Ms. Rudanec, who stated that she was in
                opposition to the proposed sign on the understanding that the sign would
                be located on the northwest corner of the site which would be visible from
                the bike path immediately west of the site. Now it has been confirmed
                that the proposed sign will be located at the centre of the site and will
SDAB-D-09-161                         3                             September 18, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                no longer be visible from her property. On that basis, she is no longer
                opposed to the proposed sign at the new location.

                The Board notes that Mr. Brown identified the precise location of the sign
                by marking the Site Plan as Exhibit A.

                During the deliberation process, the Board determined that there was an
                excess in the maximum allowable Sign Area having regard to the
                provisions of Section 59B.2(d). The proposed sign is approximately 2.44
                metres by 3.01 metres in size. The maximum allowable Sign Area in
                accordance with Section 59B.2(d) is 3.0 square metres.

                The Board reconvened the hearing and asked Mr. Brown for his comments
                regarding the Sign Area. He reiterated that the scale of the sign with the
                proposed height and width is appropriate for the scale of the development
                and the site.

                A reduction in the Sign Area will make the wording on the sign
                unreadable and less useful for identification.

                The Presiding Officer indicated that the notification for the proposed sign
                did not reference an excess in the Sign Area, only an excess in the
                allowable Height of the sign.

                The Presiding Officer indicated that re-notification to property owners in
                the area may be necessary to give the surrounding neighbourhood an
                opportunity to address the proposed excess in allowable Sign Area.



DECISION:

                that the appeal be TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2009.
SDAB-D-09-161                               4                             September 18, 2009

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                    The Board finds the following:

                    1. The Board is requesting that the Planning Department complete a
                       further review of the subject Development Permit Application to
                       determine all variances that may be required.
                    2. That the office of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
                       send a revised notice to property owners within 60 metres advising of
                       all the variances required.


September 3, 2009 Hearing:

MOTION:

                    “that SDAB-D-09-161 be raised from the table.”


SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                    “This hearing is a continuation of the initial hearing on August 12, 2009.

                    The Board heard from Mr. Yurechuk, representing the Appellant, Landale
                    Signs & Neon Ltd., and provided the following information in support of
                    the appeal:

                    1.       The application was explained in detail together with their
                             methodology in building and designing signage of this nature.
                    2.       The signs were always designed so as to be in concert with the size
                             and design of the project.
                    3.       The initial application for the proposed sign was refused by the
                             Development Officer due to an excess in the Height of the sign
                             only.
                    4.       In discussions with the Development Officer no reference had been
                             made to the variance relating to the Sign Area as it was their
                             understanding that the Development Officer had the discretion to
                             grant a variance to Sign Area and impose the condition that the
                             size and scale of the sign were to be reasonably in concert with the
                             overall scale of the project.
                    5.       After the second review by the Planning Department, he was now
                             requesting a variance of 0.64 metres in the Height of the Sign and
                             0.72 square metres in the Sign Area.
SDAB-D-09-161                          5                             September 18, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                6.      He advised that the proposed sign shall be set back 42 feet from
                        the north property line abutting Rutherford Road SW.
                7.      The sign would not be illuminated other than, possibly in the
                        future, with some floodlights added by the property owner.
                8.      He did not have the distance of the sign from either the west or east
                        property lines as was requested but was prepared to provide that in
                        a site plan if required.
                9.      The property owners residing directly across Rutherford Road SW
                        from the proposed sign had not been contacted directly by either a
                        representative of the Appellant or the property owner but only by
                        way of a Notice to Property Owner from the Subdivision and
                        Development Appeal Board Office.
                10.     Given these property owners would be those most impacted by the
                        proposed sign, the Appellant noted that there had been no response
                        from any of them either in support or opposition to the size, height,
                        and location of the proposed sign.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 0.64 metres in maximum allowable Height of the Sign and
                the excess of 0.72 square metres in the maximum allowable Sign Area be
                permitted, subject to the following condition:

                1. A Plot Plan showing the exact location of the proposed Freestanding
                   On-premises Sign shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Board on
                   or before September 30, 2009.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed On-premises Freestanding Sign is a Discretionary
                        Use in the RA7 Zone.
                2.      There is an approved existing development permit for a Boarding
                        and Lodging house on the subject site.
                3.      The proposed sign is to identify the approved use of the property as
                        a Boarding and Lodging House.
                4.      The sign is designed to be in keeping with the scale of the
                        buildings on the site and the overall size of the site.
SDAB-D-09-161                             6                               September 18, 2009

REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   5.      The setback of the sign from the north property line of the subject
                           site (Rutherford Road SW) is such that the sign will not be viewed
                           by any of the property owners to the east or west of the subject
                           site.
                   6.      Property owners to the north of the subject site who would be most
                           affected by the location of the sign have been notified and have not
                           responded in a negative manner.
                   7.      The subject site contains a large assisted-living residential complex
                           and the copy and size of the sign properly blends in with and
                           identifies the facility for residents, visitors and any service vehicles
                           attending at the facility.
                   8.      A neighbouring property owner who appeared in opposition to the
                           proposed sign at the hearing of August 12, 2009 advised that she is
                           no longer opposed as the new location of the sign will not be
                           visible from her residence.
                   9.      Based on the above, the proposed development will not unduly
                           interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                           interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                           parcels of land.”



          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-09-161                               7                              September 18, 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.



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


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



                                                  DATE: September 18, 2009
                                                  APPLICATION NO: 86623740-001
                                                  FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-162


          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 On-premises Freestanding Sign (Southgate Alliance Church & Logo)

on Lot A, Block 10, Plan 4082RS, located at 3916 – 107 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on August 12, 2009 and
September 3, 2009. The decision of the Board was as follows:


August 12, 2009 Hearing:

MOTION:

                     that the appeal be TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2009.


REASON FOR DECISION:

                     The Board finds the following:

                     1. The Board is requesting that the Planning Department complete a
                        further review of the subject Development Permit Application to
                        determine all variances that may be required.
                     2. That the office of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
                        send a revised Notice to Property Owners within 60 metres advising of
                        all the variances required.
SDAB-D-09-162                              2                             September 18, 2009

September 3, 2009 Hearing:

MOTION:

                    “that SDAB-D-09-162 be raised from the table.”


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 On-premises Freestanding Sign
                    (Southgate Alliance Church & Logo), located at 3916 – 107 Street NW.
                    The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The
                    application was refused because of an excess in the maximum allowable
                    Height, an excess in maximum allowable Sign Area, and because an
                    Electronic Message Board is neither Permitted nor Discretionary in the
                    RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone.

                    The Board notes that one letter was received in opposition to the proposed
                    development and no letters were received in support of the proposed
                    development.

                    The Board heard from Mr. Yurechuk, representing the Appellant, Landale
                    Signs & Neon Ltd., who presented his submission, a copy of which is on
                    file, and provided the following information in support of the appeal:

                    1.       In his opinion, the Development Officer erred in the interpretation
                             of sign regulations, specifically Section 59.2(9) of the Edmonton
                             Zoning Bylaw.
                    2.       The Development Officer stated that the proposed electronic copy
                             sign was neither Permitted nor Discretionary in the RF1 Zone. It
                             was his opinion that omission in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw does
                             not necessarily mean it is not allowed in the specific zone.
                    3.       A Religious Assembly is a Discretionary Use located in the RF1
                             Zone.
                    4.       He stated that in order to have the sign easily readable and
                             effective when placed adjacent to 40 Avenue, the height and sign
                             area being requested was appropriate for the location and the
                             development.
SDAB-D-09-162                         3                                September 18, 2009

SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                5.     He stated that 40 Avenue is a major commuter roadway and is
                       screened by many mature trees and is at the end of a bend in the
                       road.
                6.     The proposed sign needs to be higher that the 1.8 metre height set
                       out in the regulations so that it can be seen by passing motorists
                       giving them sufficient time to be able to access the church parking
                       lot from 40 Avenue in a safe manner.
                7.     There has been vandalism in the area and the height of the sign
                       together with the illumination from the sign would reduce the
                       potential for vandalism.
                8.     He reiterated that the Sign Area is in keeping with the overall
                       design on the subject site.
                9.     The proposed sign would also provide additional illumination for
                       neighbourhood residents using public transit on 40 Avenue and so
                       serve as a service to the community.
                10.    The electronic copy would be limited to two lines of text only and
                       there would be no animation or cartooning and the display timing
                       of the text could be adjusted.
                11.    The electronic copy would be used to display community and/or
                       church events and he described a number of events that had
                       already taken place that could have been put on the proposed sign.
                12.    The Appellant noted that there was one letter of objection but after
                       a review, it was noted that that specific residence was not in visual
                       range of the proposed sign.
                13.    The proposed sign will not illuminate any neighbouring homes
                       given it is located on 40 Avenue and not on 107 Street.

                The Board also heard from Mr. R. Chute, Board Chairman of Southgate
                Alliance Church. He provided the following information in support of the
                appeal:

                1.     The Church Board sees a need for the proposed sign off of 40
                       Avenue in order to identify the building as a church as it has been
                       confused with a residential, industrial or apartment building.
                2.     Southgate Alliance is a community-based church and a large
                       number of activities are held at the site, some of these activities in
                       conjunction with the Duggan Community League. The proposed
                       signage would be a useful tool for advertising those events for
                       community residents.
                3.     The proposed sign would also increase the Church’s visibility to
                       new residents in the community.
SDAB-D-09-162                         4                               September 18, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                4.     The Church, if required, would accept certain conditions if the
                       proposed sign were approved.
                5.     They were willing to reduce the height of the proposed sign if
                       required, they were prepared to accept a condition limiting the time
                       frame that the electronic copy portion would be illuminated, and
                       the electronic copy would be limited to two lines.
                6.     He reiterated Mr. Yurechuk’s remarks relating to 40 Avenue being
                       a busy commuter roadway and noted that it is regularly policed to
                       control speeding.
                7.     It was unlikely that parishioners would drive by the church except
                       for once or twice a week when attending events at the church but
                       the main reason for the proposed sign was intended to
                       communicate church events to those not attending the church and
                       the overall community of events that residents may wish to attend.

                In response to questions, the Board then heard from Mr. Yurechuk and he
                provided the following:

                1.     He emphasized that the height and site area of the proposed sign
                       suits the character of the existing development.
                2.     The proposed sign needs to be a greater height than allowed in the
                       Edmonton Zoning Bylaw in order to be seen by motorists using 40
                       Avenue.
                3.     The height of the north end of the building on the subject site is 1
                       ½ stories and was estimated to stand 30 feet high and the proposed
                       sign would be 23 feet high.
                4.     The proposed sign would not be a distraction to passing motorists
                       given there is no animation or cartooning.
                5.     The industry standard for changing electronic copy is between 6
                       and 8 seconds and the length of copy could be varied.
                6.     After consultation with his client, it was felt that the best time
                       frame for changing copy was at 8 second intervals given the
                       scrolling script is changeable at a minimum of 8 seconds.
                7.     Neither the Appellant nor any Church representative had any direct
                       communications with the individual who had written in objection
                       to the proposed sign. However, it was felt that perhaps the
                       individual had not understood that the location of the sign they had
                       intended to be off of 40 Avenue and not 107 Street, as was their
                       original application.
SDAB-D-09-162                         5                                September 18, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                8.     They note that the location of the proposed sign off of 40 Avenue
                       on the subject site would not be visible from the individual’s
                       residence.
                9.     The fascia signs currently existing on the north and west walls of
                       the church are to be removed should the proposed sign be
                       approved.
                10.    The wooden sign located on the north wall of the Church could be
                       removed should it be required but the finish of the building has
                       likely been affected by the sign being on the building for an
                       extended period of time.
                11.    The Church and Community League sponsor shared events such as
                       community picnics and the Appellant is of the opinion that the
                       Community League would be in support of the proposed sign.
                12.    The illumination from the proposed sign coupled with the street
                       light less than 50 feet from the proposed sign will increase
                       visibility and safety at the adjacent public transit stop.
                13.    The Appellant did not have the orientation of the proposed sign on
                       a Plot Plan and was not able to provide the exact dimensions of the
                       boundaries.
                14.    The Appellant indicated that the Church could accept a condition
                       that the hours of operation for the electronic copy portion of the
                       proposed sign be to 11:30 p.m. daily and the identification portion
                       of the sign be back lit permanently.
                15.    There are no other On-premise Signs intended for the subject site.
                16.    The parishioners are made aware of the community events through
                       the Church and through community newsletters. The proposed
                       sign is intended to identify the building as a church and promote
                       community events which are visible to motorists travelling on 40
                       Avenue.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 2.13 square metres in the maximum allowable Sign Area, the
                excess of 3.98 metres in maximum allowable Height of a Sign, and the
                requirement set out in Section 59A.1 (2) that Signs shall only face a public
                roadway other than a Lane, be permitted, subject to the following
                conditions:
SDAB-D-09-162                          6                               September 18, 2009


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                1.      The Height of the On-premises Freestanding Sign from grade to
                        the top of the sign shall not exceed 5.49 metres.
                2.      There shall be no other On-premises Freestanding Signs permitted
                        on the subject site.
                3.      The Sign shall be located a minimum of 16.76 metres from the east
                        property line of the subject site abutting 107 Street.
                4.      All portions of the Sign and its support structure shall be located
                        within the property and no part of the Freestanding Sign shall
                        project beyond the north property line.
                5.      The changeable copy portion of the sign shall remain on for a
                        minimum of 8 seconds.
                6.      The changeable copy portion of the sign shall be illuminated only
                        between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. daily.
                7.      There shall only be text displayed on the changeable copy portion
                        of the sign.
                8.      There shall be no animation or cartooning on the sign.
                9.      The two fascia signs existing on the north elevation of the subject
                        site and the one fascia sign existing on the northwest corner of the
                        subject site shall be removed within two weeks of the proposed
                        sign being commissioned.


REASONS FOR DECISION:

                The Board finds the following:

                1.      The proposed development, an On-premises Freestanding Sign, is
                        a Discretionary Use in the RF1 Zone.
                2.      By reducing the height of the proposed sign, the Board finds that
                        the proposed sign is compatible with the size and character of the
                        existing building.
                3.      The Board notes that the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw permits two
                        On-premises Freestanding Signs with an area of 3 square metres
                        each for a total of 6 square metres. By requiring that only one
                        freestanding sign is allowed on the subject site, the total area of
                        that sign is less than the cumulative total would have been for two
                        signs.
                4.      The Board is persuaded by the Appellant that the additional height
                        is required to reduce risk of vandalism and to address sight lines of
                        motorists due to the mature trees along 40 Avenue.
SDAB-D-09-162                              7                               September 18, 2009


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                    5.      By restricting the hours of operation that the changeable copy
                            portion of the sign can remain illuminated and the length of time
                            between changing the copy, the impact of the sign on vehicular
                            traffic on 40 Avenue is reduced.
                    6.      No one appeared in opposition to the proposed sign.
                    7.      There was one letter of objection to the proposed sign from an
                            adjacent resident. The location of the proposed sign has been
                            moved from what was shown on the Appellant’s application (107
                            Street) to 40 Avenue. The new location of the proposed sign is
                            such that it will no longer be directly visible from the residence of
                            the person who objected to the proposed sign.
                    8.      Based on the above, the proposed development will not unduly
                            interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                            interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                            parcels of land.”


          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-09-162                            8                             September 18, 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. L. Dunn, Presiding Officer
                                                SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                APPEAL BOARD


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



                                                   DATE: September 18, 2009
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 88632260-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-202

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated August 7, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an uncovered deck (2.44 metres by 3.08 metres) existing without permits

on Lot 98, Block 1, Plan 9924458, located at 2046 Haddow Drive NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on September 3, 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 uncovered deck (2.44 metres by
                     3.08 metres) existing without permits located at 2046 Haddow Drive NW.
                     The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The
                     proposed development was refused due to an excess in the maximum
                     allowable total Site Coverage.

                     The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. Trueman, who provided the
                     following information:

                     1.      The subject deck has been in existence for seven years.
SDAB-D-09-202                        2                             September 18, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                2.    He was unaware there was no permit issued to construct the deck
                      until August 13, 2009 during the closing of the sale of the property.
                3.    A builder had been retained to build the house and the original
                      plans reviewed and accepted by the Appellant included the subject
                      deck.
                4.    He moved into the house in May, 2002 and the deck was
                      completed in June, 2002.
                5.    To the best of his knowledge, the builder did not apply for a permit
                      to build the subject deck,
                6.    He had little involvement in the actual building and obtaining
                      permits for the house.
                7.    When a development permit application was submitted by the
                      builder prior to the construction of the deck, the permit was denied
                      on the basis that the maximum total site coverage was in excess of
                      the allowable 40 percent.
                8.    The refused development permit was subsequently appealed to the
                      Subdivision and Development Appeal Board by the house builder.
                      However, due to the late filing of the appeal, the Board did not
                      assume jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
                9.    He was unaware of the denial of the original deck permit and the
                      late filing of the appeal.
                10.   The house has been sold but the transaction cannot be completed
                      due to the fact there is no permit in place for the existing deck.
                11.   The same builder built both the house and deck.
                12.   He indicated he has spoken to his adjacent neighbours and
                      provided addresses of those neighbours he had spoken to, but did
                      not have any written evidence. None of the neighbours had
                      expressed any objection to the deck as it currently exists.
                13.   He reiterated he had no knowledge that the permit for the deck had
                      been refused or appealed until August 13, 2009.
                14.   He had spoken to the builder regarding this situation and the
                      builder had no recollection of the subject deck.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 6.05 square metres in the maximum allowable total Site
                Coverage be permitted


SDAB-D-09-202                        3                             September 18, 2009
REASONS FOR DECISION:

                      The Board finds the following:

                      1.     The uncovered deck is an addition to a Permitted Use in the RF1
                             Zone.
                      2.     The Board was persuaded that the Appellant had entrusted his
                             builder to obtain the required permits and only at the recent closing
                             of the sale of his home was he advised that the permit for the deck
                             had not, in fact, been obtained.
                      3.     The deck is not uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood.
                      4.     No letters of objection were received and no one appeared in
                             opposition to the appeal.
                      5.     The deck has been in existence for seven years without any
                             complaints.
                      6.     Based on the above, the proposed development will not unduly
                             interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                             interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                             parcels of land.”




            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.
SDAB-D-09-202                              4                             September 18, 2009
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. L. Dunn, 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: September 18, 2009
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 88349610-001
                                                   FILE NO.: SDAB-D-09-203

          NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated August 10, 2009, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:

Construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage – 8.53 metres by 7.32 metres)

on Lot 4, Block 1A, Plan 8434ET, located at 9622 – 79 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on September 3, 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 – 8.53 metres by 7.32 metres) located at 9622 – 79 Avenue NW.
                     The subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density Development Zone and is
                     located within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The proposed
                     development was refused due to an excess in the maximum allowable Site
                     Coverage of an Accessory Building or Structure.

                     The Appellant, Mr. Lister, provided the Board with an elevation drawing
                     of the proposed garage, a site plan showing the proposed garage on the
                     subject site together with photographs of his oversize vehicle. Mr. Lister
                     also provided the following information in support of his appeal:
SDAB-D-09-203                         2                               September 18, 2009


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                1.     When the proposed garage is completed, the primary dwelling
                       together with the garage will occupy less than the 40 percent total
                       allowable site coverage.
                2.     He is seeking an oversize garage in order to be able to park the
                       truck that he uses for work in it.
                3.     The garage height will be less than fourteen feet and one-storey
                       which are within the regulations set out in the Edmonton Zoning
                       Bylaw.
                4.     He wishes to build a garage 8.53 metres long to allow him to store
                       his truck which is 7.01 metres long and 3.95 metres wide with
                       mirrors.
                5.     The larger garage will also facilitate storage of tools and household
                       goods in the garage.
                6.     The variance that he is requesting affects only the amenity area in
                       his rear yard and not those of his neighbours.
                7.     Utilities being installed included electricity and natural gas.
                8.     The exterior finish of the proposed garage will be finished in the
                       same manner as that of the principal building.
                9.     He anticipates adding a small landing to the principal building but
                       maintains that even with that landing the garage and principal
                       dwelling will still occupy less than the 40 percent allowable total
                       site coverage.
                10.    He had spoken with the property owners to the east and north of
                       the subject site and they had provided verbal support for the
                       proposed garage. The lots to the west are currently undeveloped.
                11.    There is restricted parking on the south side of 79 Avenue and
                       being able to park his truck in the garage will decrease any parking
                       congestion on the avenue.
                12.    Given the value of both his truck and the tools in his truck, he
                       wants to be able to park it in a secure manner.


DECISION:

                that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                the excess of 6.29 square metres in maximum allowable Site Coverage of
                an Accessory Building or Structure be permitted, subject to the following
                conditions:
SDAB-D-09-203                          3                               September 18, 2009


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                1.      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);
                2.      eavestroughing shall be installed and drainage must take place
                        entirely on subject property;
                3.      height of the garage shall not exceed 4.3 metres nor one storey;
                4.      exterior finish of the garage shall be made compatible with that of
                        the existing principal dwelling;
                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
                        RF3 Zone.
                2.      The total allowable Site Coverage with the principal dwelling and
                        proposed garage will be less than the maximum total allowable 40
                        percent.
                3.      There were no letters of objection to the proposed development
                        and no one appeared in opposition to the proposed development.
                4.      The Appellant had verbal support for the proposed development
                        from the neighbouring property owner to the east and north of the
                        subject site.
                5.      The variance granted in the allowable Site Coverage for the
                        Accessory Building will allow the Appellant to park his truck in
                        the garage instead of on the street.
                6.      Based on the above, the proposed development will not unduly
                        interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
                        interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
                        parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-09-203                               4                               September 18, 2009

           IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



                                                    Mr. L. Dunn, Presiding Officer
                                                    SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                                    APPEAL BOARD
                     SDAB-D-09-204
                   Application No.: 88115359-001

An appeal by Pratt Lambert & Brown Insurance VS Aromatherapy
Wholistic Centre Ltd. to change the Use from a Professional, Financial,
and Office Support Services Use to a Health Service (Unit #16 – second
floor only). No interior alterations. (Aromatherapy Wholistic Centre
Ltd.) on Condo Common Area (Plan 0224325 located at 5610 – 72
Street NW and 5626 – 72 Street NW WAS WITHDRAWN.
                    SDAB-D-09-146
                  Application No.: 85287324-001

An appeal by 1328480 Alberta Ltd. VS Osama Beniameen to construct
and operate a General Retail Store and Apartment House Use building
on Lot 9, Block 29, Plan RN43 located at 11335 / 11337 – 95 Street
WAS WITHDRAWN.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:9/23/2011
language:English
pages:25