Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
5604 – 109B Avenue
EDMONTON, AB T6A 1S8
DATE: May 4, 2007
APPLICATION NO: 65915935-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-084
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated March 21, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for
permission to:
Construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage – approximately 7.31 metres by 10.97
metres) and to demolish the existing Detached Garage
on Lot 33, Block 56, Plan 2442KS, located at 5604 – 109B Avenue, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on April 19, 2007. The
decision of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
to refuse an application to construct an Accessory Building (Detached
Garage – approximately 7.31 metres by 10.97 metres) and to demolish
the existing Detached Garage located at 5604 – 109B Avenue. The
subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone and is located
within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is based on an
excess in maximum allowable height of an Accessory Building or
Structure and a deficiency in the minimum required separation space
between the principal building and the Detached Garage.
The Board heard from Mr. Clayton Graham, the Appellant, who provided
a detailed written submission, containing photographs of existing
garages in the neighbourhood, a petition of support signed by all of his
neighbours within 60 metres with the exception of one neighbour, who
could not be contacted, and a specification guide for the proposed car
lift, a copy of which is on file.
SDAB-D-07-084
2
May 4, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
Mr. Graham provided the following information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The proposed garage exceeds the Bylaw requirements for size and
height because Mr. Graham would like to accommodate a car lift
inside.
The car lift will be installed to accommodate a sports car that he
plans to purchase.
The sports car will be stored inside the garage on a car lift above
the two other family vehicles.
Additional space is required inside the garage for a small work
shop to accommodate table saws and other power tools.
The Appellant contacted and reviewed the proposed plans with
all of the affected property owners within 60 metres of his site.
Following this process, two neighbours who originally expressed
concerns about the height of the proposed garage indicated their
support for the development.
The proposed detached garage will be serviced with gas,
electricity and water.
The detached garage will not be used for commercial purposes.
The proposed new garage will be approximately 1 and ½ feet
higher than the height of the existing garage on this property.
The most affected neighbour who resides at 5704 – 109B Avenue
has a swimming pool in his rear yard and supports the
development because the proposed new design will allow more
sunlight into his rear yard.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the
excess of 0.05 metres in the maximum allowable Height for an Accessory
Building or Structure and the deficiency of 0.66 metres in the required
separation space between a Principal Building and a rear Detached
Garage, that being 3.0 metres, be permitted subject to the following
conditions:
1.
2.
3.
eaves, including eavestroughing may project a maximum of 0.46
metres (1.5 feet) into required yards or separation spaces of less
than 1.2 metres (four feet);
eavestroughing be installed and drainage to take place entirely on
subject property;
exterior finish of the garage to be made compatible with that of
the existing principal dwelling;
SDAB-D-07-084
3
May 4, 2007
DECISION (CONTINUED):
4.
5.
the Applicant install a remote control garage door opener;
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:
1.
2.
The proposed development is accessory to a Permitted Use in the
RF1 Zone.
The required variances will not materially affect the amenities of
the neighbourhood or materially affect the use, enjoyment or
value of neighbouring properties because of the following:
a) The Appellant has canvassed all of his neighbours who reside
within 60 metres of this property in compliance with the
requirements of Section 814.3(23) of the Edmonton Zoning
Bylaw.
b) All but one of the property owners who reside within 60
metres of this property, have provided written support for the
proposed development.
c) The proposed new garage will be sited in the same location as
an existing garage on this property which has existed for at
least eight years.
d) The separation space between the proposed detached garage
and the principal dwelling will not change.
e) The configuration of this lot lends itself most appropriately to
the proposed renovation design.
f) The proposed roof line design will mitigate the proposed
overall height of the detached garage.
g) The principal dwelling is a two storey structure which will
also mitigate the height of the proposed detached garage.”
SDAB-D-07-084
4
May 4, 2007
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, 5th
Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 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)
(b)
(2)
a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
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.
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:
SDAB-D-07-084
(a)
(b)
5
May 4, 2007
the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
Appeal Board; and
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)
(b)
(c)
(5)
direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
the appeal.
specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
appealed, and
make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
appropriate.
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)
(b)
are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
and
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, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 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, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
9834 – 105 Street
EDMONTON, AB T5K 1A6
DATE: May 4, 2007
APPLICATION NO: 45730304-011
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-06-340
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated November 14, 2006, from the decision of the Development Officer for
permission to:
Develop an additional dwelling unit to a 15-dwelling Apartment House (total 16 dwellings)
on Lot 24A, Block 27, Plan 0623961, located at 10522 – 77 Avenue, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on December 21, 2007,
February 15, 2007, and April 19, 2007. The decision of the Board was as follows:
December 21, 2007
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-06-340 be TABLED to February 15, 2007 as per the
written request of the Appellant dated December 18, 2006.”
February 15, 2007
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-06-340 be TABLED to April 19, 2007 as per the written
request of Marshall Hundert of MH Project Planning Ltd., for the
Appellant.”
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
2
May
4,
April 19, 2007
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-06-340 be raised from the table.”
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
to refuse an application to develop an additional dwelling unit to a 15
dwelling apartment house (total 16 dwellings) located at 10522 – 77
Avenue. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone. The
refusal is based on an excess in the maximum allowable density and a
deficiency in the required on-site parking.
The Chair first addressed the issue of jurisdiction and whether the appeal
was filed outside of the allowable 14 day appeal period, pursuant to the
requirements of the Municipal Government Act.
Mr. Hundert, representing MH Project Planning Ltd., agent for the
property owners, indicated that he had contacted GMH Architects
regarding the date on which the appeal was filed. He was advised that
GMH Architects did not receive notice of the refusal of the Development
Officer on October 30, 2006. It was his belief that this decision was
mailed to GMH Architects but he could not provide any evidence
regarding the date on which this decision was actually received.
The Board recessed to consider jurisdiction. Based on the evidence
provided, the Board applied the provisions of Section 23 of the
Interpretation Act and determined that the appeal period began on
October 31, 2006 and therefore the appeal was filed within the
allowable 14 days.
MOTION:
“that the Board assume jurisdiction pursuant to Section 23 of the
Interpretation Act.
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
3
May
4,
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
The Board reconvened and Mr. Hundert, presented the following
information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The developer has tried on two previous occasions to obtain
approval for a 16 unit Apartment building on this site.
Mr. Hundert only recently became involved with this proposed
development and concluded that proper consultation had not
been undertaken with the community.
Mr. Hundert outlined the consultation process that he had
organized with neighbouring property owners and the
Community League. Letters were sent to 73 neighbouring
property owners within 60 metres of this site as well as the
Community League
One objection was received in response to this notification and
one inquiry from a property owner who was interested in
purchasing a unit in this building.
The Community League registered their opposition to this
development proposal and a copy of their statement was included
in Mr. Hundert’s submission.
The project is approximately 70 to 80 percent complete but the
proposed sixteenth unit has not yet been developed.
The addition of a sixteenth unit will not change the exterior
appearance or the footprint of the building and will not further
impact neighbouring property owners.
A maximum of four residents could occupy the additional
dwelling unit.
The additional unit will help meet the demand for housing in
Edmonton at the present time and only requires a variance of one
parking space.
The Board then heard from Mr. Lance Rancier, representing the Queen
Alexandra Community League.
Mr. Rancier referred to a previous written presentation that was
submitted for a previous hearing scheduled for February 15, 2007, a
copy of which is on file. Mr. Rancier made the following points:
1.
The Community League is concerned that approval of this
development will set a precedent to allow developers to vary
density requirements in this area. The Community League wants
developers to comply with the density requirements outlined in
the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
4
May
4,
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
2.
3.
The Community League urged the Board to uphold previous
decisions to refuse an additional dwelling unit in this building
because the Architect for this project is in the habit of revising
approved plans in an attempt to obtain additional dwelling units.
The Community League has discussed the proposed development
with the Architect and the property owner. The Community
League was left with the impression that 16 units would be
developed regardless of the outcome of those discussions.
The Board then heard from Mr. Grandmaison, an affected property
owner who resides at 10548 – 77 Avenue. He made the following
points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
He received the consultation letter from the developer asking for
comments on the proposed development but it was his opinion
that a lack of response should not be perceived as support for the
development.
Residential parking is only permitted on the north side of 77
Avenue. The south side of 77 Avenue is reserved for the exclusive
use of the neighbouring school.
The proposed increase in density will exacerbate the existing
traffic problems especially when school buses are parked on the
south side of 77 Avenue.
Parking will be a problem for the residents of this building
because it is common for the occupants of a household to own
more than one vehicle.
The entire neighbourhood is subject to seasonal and weekend
influxes of vehicles due to its proximity to Whyte Avenue.
Allowing an increase in density for this building would negatively
impact life in this neighbourhood, specifically the availability of
on- street parking and increased traffic.
In rebuttal, Mr. Hundert reiterated the fact that the requested sixteenth
unit has not yet been developed. He noted that public transit was
available nearby and that residents in this locale could be expected to use
public transit rather than relying exclusively on their own vehicles. Mr.
Hundert reiterated his opinion that the proposed additional unit would
have a negligible impact on traffic and parking in this area.
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
5
May
4,
DECISION:
that the appeal be DENIED and the DEVELOPMENT REFUSED.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.
The requested variance in maximum allowable Density will
unduly affect the amenities of the neighbourhood and materially
affect the use, enjoyment and value of neighbouring properties
because of the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
The maximum allowable density for this site is 15
dwellings, pursuant to Section 210.4(1) of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw.
Section 54.2, Schedule 1(1) of the Edmonton Zoning
Bylaw requires 27 on-site parking spaces for 16 dwelling
units.
The Queen Alexandra Community League opposes the
proposed increase in density.
Eleven neighbouring property owners have signed a
petition of opposition dated April 16, 2007, a copy of
which is on file.
Residential parking is only allowed on the north side of 77
Avenue and the variance required in density will only
exacerbate the parking problems in this neighbourhood.
There are two schools located in close proximity to the
subject site which poses a safety concern because of the
number of children walking along 77 Avenue.
The developer did not provide any written support for the
proposed development.”
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, 5th
Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
6
May
4,
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)
b)
the Board has adopted the minutes of its meeting at which the application was
approved; and
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)
(b)
(2)
a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
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.
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)
(b)
the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
Appeal Board; and
any other persons that the judge directs.
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
7
May
4,
(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)
(b)
(c)
(5)
direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
the appeal.
specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
appealed, and
make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
appropriate.
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)
(b)
are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
and
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, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-06-340
2007
(2)
8
May
4,
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, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
MH Project Planning Ltd. – Attn: Marshall Hundert
Central Area Council of Community Leagues – Attn: Michael J. Pucylo, President
Mr. Rancier
Ms. Millar
Mr. Grandmaison
Strathcona Court Condominium Association, c/o Mr. Janvier
Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
10016 – 130 Avenue
EDMONTON, AB T5E 6L5
DATE: May 4, 2007
APPLICATION NO.: 63336104-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-085
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
These appeals dated March 21, 2007 and April 2, 2007, from the decision of the Development
Officer for permission to:
Construct two three-dwelling Row Housing Buildings
on Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 7, Plan 823AI, located at 5920/22 and 24 – 118 Avenue and
11803/05 and 07 – 60 Street, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at
its meeting held on April 19, 2007. The decision of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
to approve, with conditions and variances, an application to construct
two three-dwelling row housing buildings located at 11803, 11805 and
11807 – 60 Street and 5920, 5922, and 5924 – 118 Avenue. The
subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone and is located within
the Montrose/Santa Rosa Area Redevelopment Plan. The approval was
appealed by the Montrose Community League and the Highlands and
District Community League.
Christine Bremner, Treasurer for Highlands Community League, one of
the Appellants, provided the following information:
1. The Community League is opposed to this development because of
the variances granted in the landscaping requirements and required
on-site parking.
SDAB-D-07-085
2
May 4, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
2. The Community League recognizes the need for transitional housing.
However, it is important to provide the children who will be residing
in this development with a green space that is landscaped with trees
and shrubs to comply with the requirements of the Edmonton Zoning
Bylaw.
3. Parking is extremely limited in the cul de sac on 60 Street and
parking is not permitted on 118 Avenue.
The Board then heard from Mr. Van Sloten, representing Montrose
Community League, the other Appellant, who provided the following
information:
1. Montrose Community League is opposed to this development because
of the relaxation in on-site parking spaces and the relaxation of the
landscaping requirements.
2. Montrose Community League realizes the need for low income
housing in this area but is concerned about the long term parking
problems that will result if a variance is granted for on-site parking
The Board also heard from Mr. David Johnson, President of Montrose
Community League, who indicated that attempts to meet with the
developer to discuss the parking concerns had not materialized.
The Board then heard from Mr. Hinteregger, representing the
Respondent, Concept Homes, who provided the following information:
1. There are existing mature trees on the subject property although
some trees were removed to accommodate the demolition.
2. He could have applied to develop a 12 unit Apartment Building on
this site which is a Permitted Use in the RA7 Low Rise Apartment
Zone.
3. He has formed a partnership with UMISK Affordable Housing Society
because it is his opinion that they provide a valuable service in this
community.
4. His role in the Association is to purchase property, secure
development permits and oversee the construction of the proposed
buildings.
5. Attempts had been made to meet with the Montrose Community
League without success.
SDAB-D-07-085
3
May 4, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
The Board then heard from Ms. Jones, representing UMISK Affordable
Housing Society, who made the following points:
1. The Society had originally applied for a permit to develop an eight
unit project on this site. Each unit would have been rented for $650
per month.
2. Following consultation with the Planning and Development
Department, the project was reduced to 6 units in order to provide
the required amenity space. UMISK determined that this would be
feasible if the tenants paid their own utility charges and the rent was
increased to $700 per month.
3. The Society has provided limited landscaping for other projects in the
City because it has been their experience that the children residing in
the units destroy the shrubs and other plantings. There is also a
safety issue relating to Crime Prevention Through Urban Design
principles.
4. This is low income housing and few of the prospective tenants
neither own their own vehicles nor are likely to in the future.
5. The couple who have agreed to manage this project, and were
previous tenants, do own a vehicle.
6. The Resident Manager resides on site but is permitted to work off site.
7. Strict controls are enforced regarding drugs and alcohol. Overnight
visitors are not allowed without the permission of the UMISK
Affordable Housing Society.
In response to a question, Ms. Jones advised that the signatures of
support on the submitted petition were gathered from residents within a
five to six block radius of the subject site. She conceded that there was a
communication break down with the residents on the 60 Street cul de
sac, which abuts the subject site.
Mr. Hinteregger indicated that each dwelling will have a private rear
yard with chain link fencing. A decision had been made to use chain
link fencing and limit the number of shrubs in an attempt to reduce
potential hiding spaces for undesired activities.
In response to questions, Mr. Hinteregger indicated that Columnar
Aspens and Scots Pines had been proposed as part of the landscaping
plan in an attempt to break up the visual appearance of the siding on the
buildings.
Ms. Jones and Mr. Hinteregger conceded that meaningful consultation
with the Community Leagues did not occur. He assured the Board that
the Developer is prepared to work with both Community Leagues.
SDAB-D-07-085
4
May 4, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
In rebuttal, Ms. Bremner advised that Highlands Community League did
not receive written notice regarding the proposed development until
approximately ten days after construction had commenced and the
developer had not consulted with the Highlands Community League.
She referred to City of Edmonton Policy C436 dated August, 1987, which
provided general site selection guidelines for family social housing. One
of the guidelines was that this type of housing should not be located in
close proximity to hazardous areas or major traffic arterials and 118
Avenue is a very busy thoroughfare.
This property is located
approximately 2 kilometres from the nearest grocery store although
there is a convenience store located nearby.
In conclusion, Ms. Bremner indicated that if the lines of communication
with the developer had been better, this appeal could have been avoided.
In rebuttal, Mr. David Johnson, President of the Montrose Community
League, indicated that tenants in this area are not Community League
orientated, which is a societal problem. He hopes that they will become
involved.
Mr. Van Sloten indicated that he is very proud of this community and the
changes that are being made. He expressed concern that notices
regarding the proposed development were sent to Ben Calf Robe School
and not the residents of the adjacent cul de sac.
The Presiding Officer then adjourned the hearing. However, the Board
then asked all of the affected parties to re-enter the meeting room
because the Board had additional questions. Ms. Bremner, representing
the Highlands Community League and Mr. Helmut Hinterregar were not
in attendance as they had left City Hall. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Van Sloten
and Messrs. Rick and David Hintereggar, representing the developer
were still available.
The Board asked for feedback on the possibility of erecting a 4 foot chain
link fence along the front property line, abutting 118 Avenue in an
attempt to make that area of yard more secure and safe for children who
might play there.
The developer and all of the Community League representatives in
attendance indicated that this would be a positive addition to the
development.
SDAB-D-07-085
5
May 4, 2007
DECISION:
that both appeals be DENIED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the
deficiency of 4 required on-site parking stalls, the deficiency of 37
required shrubs, the deficiency of 1.0 metres in required Separation
Space in front of a Principal Living Room Window, the deficiency of 0.73
metres required Separation Space in front of a Habitable Room Window
and the excess of 0.22 metres in allowable fence height in the Front Yard
be permitted subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
a 1.22 metre (4 feet) chain-linked fence shall be constructed
along the east Side property line from the southeast corner of the
proposed East Block development, to the south property line,
along the south property line (abutting 118 Avenue) to the edge
of the proposed treed landscaping and then north and east to the
southwest corner of the proposed West Block development. A
gate must be provided at the proposed sidewalk located between
the East and West Block development;
the east elevation of both buildings shall be broken up with
vertical lines and/or cladding;
a revised plan showing the required fencing and the exterior
finish of the east elevations of both buildings shall be submitted to
the satisfaction of the Board by May 3, 2007;
any future deck development greater than 0.6 metres (2 feet) in
height will require development and building permit approvals;
the height of the principal building shall not exceed 7.5 metres
as per the height definition of Section 6.1(33) of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw 12800;
the developer shall provide one guest parking space readily
available to an entrance of the building to be served, and clearly
identified as guest parking pursuant to Section 54.2(1)(a),
Schedule 1(1);
the off-street parking, loading and unloading (including aisles or
driveways) shall be hardsurfaced, curbed, drained and
maintained in accordance to Section 54.6;
landscaping shall be in accordance to the approved landscape
plan pursuant to Section 55;
PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT
REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall provide a
guaranteed security to ensure that landscaping is provided and
maintained for two growing seasons. The Landscape Security
may be held for two full years after the landscaping has been
completed. This security may take the following forms:
SDAB-D-07-085
6
May 4, 2007
DECISION (CONTINUED):
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
a) cash to a value equal to 100 Percent of the established
landscaping costs;
or
b) an irrevocable letter of credit having a value equivalent to
100 Percent of the established landscaping costs.
Any letter of credit shall allow for partial draws. If the
landscaping is not completed in accordance with the approved
Landscape Plan(s) within one growing season after completion of
the development or if the landscaping is not well maintained and
in a healthy condition two growing seasons after completion of
the landscaping, the City may draw on the security for its use
absolutely. Reference Section 55.6
all outdoor trash collection areas shall be located and screened
pursuant to Sections 55(4) and (5);
an approved Development Permit means that the proposed
development has been reviewed against the provisions of this
bylaw. It does not remove obligations to conform with other
legislation, bylaws or land title instruments such as the Municipal
Government Act, the Edmonton Building Permit Bylaw or any
caveats, covenants or easements that might be attached to the
Site. (Reference Section 5.2);
separation Space shall be provided in accordance with Section 48
of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, as amended;
lot grades must match the Engineered approved lot grading plans
for the area. Contact Drainage Services at 496-5500 for lot
grading inspection inquiries;
any sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring as a result of
construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of the
Transportation Department, as per Section 15.5(f) of the Zoning
Bylaw. The sidewalks and boulevard will be inspected by a
Roadway Maintenance Inspector prior to construction, and again
once construction is complete. All expenses incurred for repair
are to be borne by the owner;
there are existing boulevard trees adjacent to the site that must be
protected during construction as illustrated on the Enclosure.
Prior to construction, the owner/applicant must contact Milton
Davies of Parks (496-4954) to arrange for hoarding and/or root
cutting;
any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-way
requires an On Street Construction and Maintenance (OSCAM)
Permit. The owner must call Traffic Operations at 496-2680 to
arrange for the permit;
SDAB-D-07-085
7
May 4, 2007
DECISION (CONTINUED):
17.
18.
a 2 metres by 4 metres by 200 millimetres thick concrete pad
must be constructed in front of the garbage bins to provide an
adequate base that will withstand the weight of the waste
management vehicle when loading as illustrated on the
Enclosure;
garbage enclosures must be located entirely within private
property and gates and/or doors of the garbage enclosure must
not open or encroach into road right-of-way, as shown on the
Enclosure.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.
2.
The proposed development is a Discretionary Use in the RA7
Zone.
The requested variances will not unduly affect the amenities of
the neighbourhood or materially affect the use, enjoyment or
value of neighbouring properties because of the following:
a) The Board accepts the explanation of the Respondent
regarding the number of on-site parking spaces that will be
required by the prospective tenants of this development and
the minimal impact of the variance that has been granted.
b) The Board accepts the explanation of the Respondent
regarding the relaxation granted for the landscaping
requirements.
c) The requirement of a fence along the south property line will
provide additional security and safety for the prospective
tenants.
d) The Appellants did not oppose the variances granted in
Separation Space, which will have the most effect on the
prospective tenants in the development and not impact
surrounding properties.”
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, 5th
Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
SDAB-D-07-085
8
May 4, 2007
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:
b)
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)
(b)
(2)
a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
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.
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)
(b)
the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
Appeal Board; and
any other persons that the judge directs.
SDAB-D-07-085
9
May 4, 2007
(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)
(b)
(c)
(5)
direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
the appeal.
specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
appealed, and
make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
appropriate.
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)
(b)
are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
and
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, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 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, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
Mr. Van Sloten, Montrose Community League
Mr. Johnson, Montrose Community League
SDAB-D-07-085
10
Mr. & Mrs. Bremner, Highlands Community League
Ms. Jones, UMISK Affordable Housing Society
Mrs. Reitman
Councillor Melnychuk
Councillor Gibbons
May 4, 2007