Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
Main Floor, Churchill Building
10019 – 103 Avenue NW
Edmonton, AB T5J 0G9
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: June 30, 2011
APPLICATION NO: 108631124-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-11-114
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated May 19, 2011, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:
Construct additions (front veranda, rear veranda, front garage), to construct exterior alterations
(change of roof lines and new windows on north elevations) and to construct interior alterations
on Lot 11, Block 12, Plan 6773MC, located at 12404 – 40 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on June 15, 2011. 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 appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
to refuse an application to construct additions (front veranda, rear veranda,
front garage), to construct exterior alterations (change of roof lines and
new windows on north elevations) and to construct interior alterations,
located at 12404 – 40 Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single
Detached Residential Zone and is within the Mature Neighbourhood
Overlay. The application was refused because of a deficiency in the total
Side Yard requirement, the minimum Front Yard requirement, that being
consistent with the Setback of development on adjacent Sites and with the
general context of the block face, and an excess in the maximum
allowable protrusion of a Garage beyond the front wall of the Principal
Building.
SDAB-D-11-114
2
June 30, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
The Board notes that one letter was received indicating that they originally
signed the petition in support of the proposed development and they were
now rescinding their support.
Prior to the hearing the Appellant submitted a package containing his
reasons for the appeal, a letter from the Aspen Gardens Community
League in support of the proposed development, a petition with 20
signatures from eighteen neighbouring property owners and two tenants,
in support of the proposed development, two signatures from neighbouring
property owners who wished to remain neutral of the proposed
development, and one signature in opposition to the proposed
development. The package also contained the Real Property Report and
photographs of the area.
The Board heard from the Appellant, Mr. and Mrs. Lamarche, who made
the following points:
1. They provided the Board with photographs illustrating vehicles
positioned on the property in the location of the proposed garage
showing the visibility to the street from the garage.
2. They contacted their neighbours and invited them to an open house to
review the proposed garage plans with them.
3. The original home is situated on an angled lot and was built when the
previous Edmonton Zoning Bylaw regulations were in place.
4. The original home location is non-conforming due in part to the house
being built on a reverse pie shaped lot.
5. The proposed development will add character to the neighbourhood
which may be going through a redevelopment phase.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. and Mrs. Lamarche provided
the following information:
1. There are other front attached garages on the street that have longer
driveways than that of the proposed development.
2. They are prepared to reduce the back porch in order to conform with
the overall Site Coverage requirement.
3. They could reduce the size of the garage; however, they would like to
leave it the size as proposed.
4. A portion of the proposed garage will be on the existing driveway and
angled so that access and egress to the garage will be safer with
vehicles driving forward onto the street rather than backing out onto
the street.
SDAB-D-11-114
3
June 30, 2011
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the deficiency of 1.47 metres in the total Side Yard requirement, that being
20 percent of the Site Width, the deficiency of 1.25 metres in the
minimum Front Yard requirement, that being consistent with the setback
of development on adjacent sites and with the general context of the block
face, the excess of 9.97 metres in the maximum allowable protrusion of
the Garage beyond the front wall of the Principal Building, and the excess
of 7.6 square metres in the maximum allowable total Site Coverage, be
permitted, subject to the following condition:
1. the Appellant shall install opaque windows on the north elevation of
the proposed attached garage.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development is an addition to a Permitted Use in the
RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone.
2. The lot is a unique pie shaped lot, which would be difficult to develop
without variances.
3. The footprint of the original home will not be changed except for the
attached garage. The existing dwelling was built prior to the current
Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
4. The Appellant received seventeen signatures from neighbouring
property owners in the 60 metre notification radius in support of the
proposed development, including the most affected neighbour and the
Community League.
5. The orientation of the garage will facilitate safe egress from the
property in a forward direction.
6. Installing opaque windows on the north elevation of the garage will
mitigate the visual impact and privacy concerns on the neighbouring
property.
7. The neighbour north of the subject site did not submit a letter of
opposition.
8. No one appeared in opposition at the hearing.
9. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that 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-11-114
4
June 30, 2011
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.
This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision, 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.
SDAB-D-11-114
5
June 30, 2011
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. A. Peterson, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
SDAB-D-11-115
Application No. 108230858-001
An appeal by
to construct a second floor addition to a
Single Detached House (existing without permits), on Lot 21, Block 74, Plan
RN43B, located at 11724 – 88 Street NW, was TABLED TO JULY 7, 2011.
SDAB-D-11-116
Application No. 109691666-001
An appeal by
to construct an Accessory Building (Detached
Garage) 12.19 metres by 5.48 metres, on Lot H, Block 88, Plan 8451ET, located at
11628 – 86 Street NW, was TABLED TO JULY 14, 2011.
Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
Main Floor, Churchill Building
10019 – 103 Avenue NW
Edmonton, AB T5J 0G9
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: June 30, 2011
APPLICATION NO: 109034711-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-11-117
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated May 20, 2011, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:
Construct a Garage Suite above an existing Detached Garage
on Lots 17 and 18, Block 4, Plan 1032AA, located at 9230 – 94 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on June 15, 2011. 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 appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
to refuse an application to construct a Garage Suite above an existing
Detached Garage, located at 9230 – 94 Street NW. The subject site is
zoned RF3 Low Density Development Zone and is within the Mature
Neighbourhood Overlay. The application was refused because the
proposed Garage Suite does not meet the definition of the Use as defined
in the RF3 Low Density Development Zone, an excess in the maximum
allowable Height, and a deficiency in the minimum required Side Yard.
The Board notes that two letters were received in opposition to the
proposed development.
SDAB-D-11-117
2
June 30, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
The Board heard from Mr. Cremer, representing the Appellant, OCS
Contracting, who made the following points:
1. He is representing OCS Contracting and the property owners.
2. The application is for a Garage Suite that will be used as an art studio,
guest accommodations, and for storage purposes.
3. The proposed Garage Suite will not be used as a rental unit.
4. Visiting family members will occasionally be using the Garage Suite
but will not be living there.
5. He indicated that the proposed Garage Suite is intended to be used for
sleeping accommodations and for sanitary facilities and will not be
used for food preparation or cooking facilities.
6. In his opinion, the proposed development is a loft and not a Garage
Suite.
7. The plans from a previous development permit application that was
heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board included
bathroom facilities.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Cremer provided the following
information:
1. He indicated that the Board could impose a condition to prevent the
Garage Suite from being used as a rental. The property owner does
not want to deal with a rental property.
2. The Development Authority suggested that he should apply for a
development permit for a Garage Suite even though they are not
planning to have food preparation or cooking facilities.
3. There will be a pull out couch to use for sleeping accommodations.
4. The proposed bathroom will only have a toilet and a sink.
5. He is appealing the proposed application because when the permit for
the loft was approved he was told he needed a permit for a toilet and a
sink.
6. They would be willing to accept a condition imposed by the Board that
the proposed Garage Suite shall not have sleeping facilities.
7. There will be an entrance and staircase on the exterior south elevation
of the garage loft to access the second floor.
8. They chose an exterior access to the Garage Suite because of
restrictive building and fire codes that are required for an interior
access.
SDAB-D-11-117
3
June 30, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
9. He indicated that his definition of a loft is a room over a garage or a
separate building used for a studio, shop, or storage space and not
living quarters.
10. When asked what he thought the utility requirements for shop space
versus storage space were, he indicated that the proposed plans
included all of the utilities that would fit the definition of a Garage
Suite.
11. With regard to the proposed plans submitted with the application
having a kitchen and bathroom facilities, he indicated that the property
owner was utilizing the Cornerstone Grant Program. Including a
kitchen and bathroom facilities in the proposed plans would be an
asset for future use. However, the property owner is willing to install
only a sink and a toilet in the Garage Suite.
12. He agreed that the proposed plans fit the definition of a Garage Suite.
The Board then heard from Ms. Huebner, who made the following points:
1. She is an affected neighbouring property owner and is in opposition to
the proposed development.
2. She has reviewed the plans and agrees that the proposed development
is for a Garage Suite.
In rebuttal, Mr. Cremer made the following point:
1. He agreed that the proposed development is for a Garage Suite.
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, a Garage Suite, is neither a Permitted nor
Discretionary Use in the RF3 Low Density Development Zone
because it does not meet the definition of the Use as defined in the
RF3 Low Density Development Zone.
SDAB-D-11-117
4
June 30, 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION CONTINUED:
2. Under Section 140.3(6) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, Garage Suites
are a Discretionary Use:
a. on corner lots; or
b. on lots fronting onto a service road; or
c. lots backing onto a lane adjacent to an arterial road that is
separated from the lane by a landscaped boulevard; or
d. lots where a Side or Rear Lot Line abuts a Site in a Row Housing,
Apartment, or Community Services Zone, or any Site in a Zone
where Public Parks are a Permitted Use, or is not separated from
these Sites by a public roadway more than 10.0 metres wide.
3. Section 687(3) of the Municipal Government Act states that “in
determining an appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board
….
(d)(ii) may make an order or decision or issue or confirm the issue of a
development permit even though the proposed development does not
comply with the land use bylaw if, in its opinion, the proposed
development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building
in the land use bylaw.
4. Under Section 7.2(3), Garage Suite means an Accessory Dwelling
located above a Detached Garage (above Grade); or a single-storey
Accessory Dwelling attached to the side or rear of, a detached Garage
(at Grade). A Garage Suite is Accessory to a building in which the
principal Use is Single Detached Housing. A Garage Suite has cooking
facilities, food preparation, sleeping and sanitary facilities which are
separate from those of the principal Dwelling located on the Site. A
Garage Suite has an entrance separate from the vehicle entrance to the
detached Garage, either from a common indoor landing or directly
from the exterior of the structure. This Use Class does not include
Secondary Suites or Garden Suites.
5. The Applicant agrees that the application included plans for cooking
and bathroom facilities that meet the definition of a Garage Suite.
6. The proposed development meets the definition of a Garage Suite.
7. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that 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-11-117
5
June 30, 2011
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
1.
This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
Permit.
2.
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. A. Peterson, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc: