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
10647 – 74 Street NW
EDMONTON, AB T6A 2Y6
DATE: July 28, 2011
APPLICATION NO: 99803533-002
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-11-133
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated June 21, 2011, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:
Park a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in a required Front Yard
on Lot 11, Block 5, Plan 6906KS, located at 10647 – 74 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on July 13, 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 park a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in a required
Front Yard, located at 10647 – 74 Street. The subject site is zoned RF1
Single Detached Residential Zone and is within the Mature
Neighbourhood Overlay. The application was refused because Section
45.2 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states that “no person shall keep, in a
required Front Yard in any Residential District, any large Recreational
Vehicle for any longer than is reasonably necessary to load or unload such
vehicle”. Section 45.3 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw does allow parking
of large Recreational Vehicles in front yards in residential districts from
April 1 through October 31 inclusive, but only where no rear lane exits,
which is not the case at the subject site.
SDAB-D-11-133
2
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
The Board notes that one letter of opposition was received from a
neighbour who resides in close proximity to the proposed development, a
copy of which is on file.
Mr. Dacko, the Appellant, provided a detailed written submission,
including photographs and a petition of support containing 14 signatures
from neighbouring property owners, a copy of which is on file. Mr.
Dacko provided the following information in support of the appeal:
1. He is aware of the restrictions of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw
regarding the parking of his RV in his Front yard. However, it was his
opinion that extenuating circumstances, including his wife’s medical
condition, warrant a relaxation of the Bylaw requirements.
2. Having the RV parked in the front yard is a convenience for his wife
who enjoys gardening and can rest in the RV as required.
3. There is a parking pad adjacent to his rear detached garage which can
accommodate his RV but access to the pad is awkward and difficult.
4. His children are currently learning to drive and having the RV parked
on the apron of the rear detached garage makes it difficult for them to
manoeuvre vehicles in and out of the garage.
5. Unlike the majority of RV owners, he and his family use the RV quite
regularly during the winter months for ski trips and other winter
activities.
6. Manoeuvring the RV in the rear lane during the winter months is very
difficult because of the ruts that develop in the snow and the ice.
7. On one occasion he had requested the permission of his neighbours to
park the RV in the front for a few days prior to a ski trip. His
neighbours refused but he parked the RV in the front anyway and was
subsequently issued a ticket from Bylaw Enforcement.
8. He reiterated that it is very difficult to keep the rear parking pad and
the lane clear of snow during the winter months when it becomes
difficult to find a place to put the snow.
Mr. Dacko provided the following responses to questions:
1. Mr. Dacko parks his RV at his property because offsite storage is
expensive.
2. When Mr. Dacko contacted the City of Edmonton to find a solution to
his problem, he was advised to apply for a development permit to
authorize the parking of his RV on the front driveway.
SDAB-D-11-133
3
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
3. The RV is not visible in the photographs taken by SDAB staff because
the RV was parked on another lot that he owns in Cherrywood at that
time.
4. It was acknowledged that front driveways are common along 74
Street. The driveway on his property originally serviced a front drive
garage which has been converted to provide additional living space.
5. Other houses on this street still have front drive garages but there are
no other RVs parked on the front driveways in this neighbourhood.
6. He has considered redesigning his rear detached garage to have the
overhead door face the rear lane but the cost is prohibitively
expensive.
7. Mr. Dacko has no intention of purchasing a larger RV. In fact, when
this RV is no longer usable it is his intent to purchase a smaller unit for
he and his wife as his children will no longer be living at home.
The Board then heard from Mr. Doug Wasson and his wife, Shelley Henry
who reside immediately south of the subject site. Mr. Wasson provided a
written submission including photographs and a letter of opposition from a
neighbouring property owner, a copy of which is on file. Mr. Wasson
provided the following information in opposition to the proposed
development:
1. This is a very nice neighbourhood where residents take pride in their
properties and it was his opinion that the parking of this RV on the
front driveway detracts from the neighbourhood.
2. In 2010, he asked Mr. Dacko not to park his RV in the front driveway
because of the adverse affect that it had on the use and enjoyment of
his property.
3. Mr. Dacko has been told repeatedly about the concerns of parking his
RV on the front driveway.
4. It was his opinion that all of the residents have to contend with ruts
and snow in the rear lane during the winter months.
5. He and his wife are the most directly affected neighbours when the RV
is parked in the front driveway. They have witnessed the RV being
used as an extension of living space which infringes on their privacy.
6. The RV is approximately 10 feet from their living room window when
it is parked on the driveway.
7. They are often bothered by gas fumes when the RV is being idled on
the driveway for long periods of time.
8. Photographs that were taken from their living room and other locations
on their property were submitted to illustrate that Mr. Dacko and other
family members use the RV at various times of the day and night.
SDAB-D-11-133
4
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
9. Mr. Wasson submitted a letter of opposition from a neighbour who
originally signed the petition of support circulated by Mr. Dacko. This
neighbour resides across the street from Mr. Dacko and can see the RV
from their front window.
10. It was his opinion that the difficulties described by Mr. Dacko in
parking the RV at the rear are somewhat exaggerated because the
curvature of the lane actually assists access to the parking pad.
11. He did not feel that Mrs. Dacko’s medical condition justified parking
the RV in the front driveway.
12. A photograph of the RV taken with the entire lights on was submitted
to illustrate that the RV is used during the evening hours.
13. Someone lived in the RV for a week while the Dackos were away.
Mr. Dacko provided the following information in rebuttal:
1. It was his opinion that the concerns that he had raised justified the
granting of a development permit.
2. He does not idle his RV for more than 5 minutes before leaving the
property.
3. In response to a question, Mr. Dacko indicated that he or one of his
family members sleep in the RV overnight approximately once per
month.
4. Parked RVs need to have their batteries charged which was part of the
reason for lights being visible from inside the RV during the evening
hours.
DECISION:
that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the Development
Authority CONFIRMED
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
Section 45.3 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states that no person
shall keep, in the required Front Yard in any Residential Zone, or
in the case of a corner Site, in the required Front Yard or the
required flanking Side Yard in any Residential Zone, any large
Recreational Vehicle for any longer than is reasonably necessary to
load or unload such vehicle.
SDAB-D-11-133
5
July 28, 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION (CONTINUED):
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Section 45.4 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states
notwithstanding subsection 45.3, from April 1 through October 31
inclusive, on a residential Site with no rear Lane, large
Recreational Vehicles may be parked to within 2.0 metres of the
interior edge of the sidewalk, or within 2.0 metres of the curb if
there is no sidewalk:
a.
where vehicular access is solely available through the Front
Yard; or
b.
in the case of a corner Site, where vehicular access is solely
available through the Front Yard or through the exterior flanking
Side Yard.
The proposed development on the subject site does not comply
with the requirements of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
Based on the evidence provided by the immediately adjacent and
most affected property owner, the Recreational Vehicle is being
used as an extension of the living space by the owners of the
subject property.
Based on information provided by the Appellant and property
owner, the Recreational Vehicle is used as sleeping space by
family members at least once per month.
The Board does not accept the rationale provided by the Appellant
regarding the need to park the Recreational Vehicle in the front
yard. There is adequate space available off the rear lane behind the
detached garage to accommodate the Recreational Vehicle.
All of the residents on this block have to contend with the build up
of snow and ice in the rear lane during the winter months.
Therefore the Board does not accept this reason as justification to
approve a permit to allow a Recreational Vehicle to be parked in
the required Front Yard.
Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the
proposed development would unduly interfere with the amenities
of the neighbourhood and materially interfere with and affect the
use, enjoyment and value of neighbouring parcels of land.”
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.
SDAB-D-11-133
6
July 28, 2011
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.
Ms. S. Kwan, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
c.c.
Mr. Henry & Mr. Wasson
Ms. Bohonos
Mr. & Mrs. Markoja
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
12850 – St. Albert Trail NW
EDMONTON, AB T5L 4H6
DATE: July 28, 2011
APPLICATION NO: 110610627-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-11-134
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated June 15, 2011, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission
to:
Construct an On-Premises Freestanding Animation Sign (3.8 metres by 1.98 metre LED panel)
on Lot 8, Block 13A, Plan 9021619, located at 14238 – 134 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on July 13, 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 an On-premises Freestanding
Animation Sign (3.8 metres by 1.98 metres LED panel), located at 14238
– 134 Avenue. The subject site is zoned IB Industrial Business Zone. The
application was refused because it was the opinion of the Development
Officer that this sign will create a hazard to traffic on a public roadway
from which the Sign is visible.
The Board notes that no letters of either support or objection were
received.
SDAB-D-11-134
2
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
The Board heard from Mr. Perry and Mr. Odegard, representing the
Appellant, Blanchett Neon Ltd.
Mr. Perry made the following points in support of the appeal:
1. The proposed On-premises Freestanding Sign will be used to advertise
job opportunities and showcase projects for Canada North Camps.
2. On-premises Freestanding Signs are a Permitted Use in this zone,
pursuant to Schedule 59F.1(3) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
3. The proposed On-premises Freestanding Sign was reviewed according
to Section 59.2(1)(c) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw because it is an
electronic sign.
4. The Executive Committee of City Council approved the “Draft”
Electronic Signage Bylaw on June 15, 2011. The “Draft” Bylaw will
proceed to a public hearing in September, 2011.
5. The proposed sign would be classified as a major digital sign
according to the regulations contained in the “Draft” Bylaw.
6. The City of Edmonton has never received any data or evidence that
digital signage creates a hazard to traffic on a public roadway from
which the sign is visible.
Mr. Odegard, representing Blanchett Neon Ltd. made the following points:
1. The McCracken family owns the subject property.
2. The primary business on the property is Canada North Camps.
3. It was clarified that this site serves as headquarters for a number of
other companies.
4. The proposed On-premises Freestanding Sign will be used to advertise
for these companies.
5. An Encroachment Agreement was issued in January 2009 for the
encroachment of the existing sign into the utility right of way.
6. The proposed new sign will not encroach any further into the utility
right of way.
7. The new portion of the sign will be constructed further into the site.
8. The new sign will sit at the same angle as the existing sign with a
single southwest face.
Mr. Perry and Mr. Odegard provided the following responses to questions:
1. They would be prepared to comply with an interval change time of
between 6 and 10 seconds.
SDAB-D-11-134
3
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
2. The proposed sign will contain manual software to adjust the
brightness of the sign to ambient light.
3. It was their opinion that the proposed sign will not adversely impact
any neighbouring property owners or create a traffic hazard to traffic
on the public roadway.
4. Traffic is quite light along 134 Avenue which is not a busy roadway.
5. It was confirmed that the proposed sign will not contain any action,
motion or moving parts.
6. The proposed On-premises Freestanding Sign will only display static
images.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:
1. the frequency of change in static digital display, including public
interest/date/time/temperature information cannot be less than 6
seconds with a 1 second transition (hold time);.
2. that each static digital display shall contain a single advertising copy
and that split screen advertising is not permitted;
3. the Sign shall not be animated;
4. due to its position, shape, colour, format or illumination, the proposed
Freestanding On-premises Sign shall not obstruct the view of, or be
confused with an official traffic sign, signal or device, as determined
by the Development Officer in consultation with the City Engineer;
5. the proposed Freestanding On-premises Sign shall not display lights
resembling the flashing lights usually associated with danger or those
used by police, fire, ambulance and other emergency vehicles;
6. the proposed Freestanding On-premises Sign shall not operate or
employ any stereo option or motion picture projection, or use
holography;
7. the brightness of the proposed Freestanding On-premises Sign shall be
adjustable and controlled relative to ambient light, to the satisfaction
of the Development Officer in consultation with the Transportation
Services Department;
8. that should at any time the Development Officer, in consultation with
the Transportation Services Department determine that the sign face
contributes to safety concerns, the owner/applicant must immediately
SDAB-D-11-134
4
July 28, 2011
DECISION (CONTINUED):
address the safety concerns identified by removing the sign, deenergizing the sign, changing the message conveyed on the sign,
and/or addressing the concern in another manner acceptable to the
Development Officer in consultation with the Transportation Services
Department;
9. that the owner/applicant must provide a written statement of the
actions taken to mitigate a safety concern identified by the
Transportation Department within 30 days of the notification of the
concern. Failure to provide corrective action will result in the
requirement to immediately remove or de-energize the sign;
10. that underground power be supplied to the proposed Freestanding Onpremises Sign.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A Freestanding On-premises Sign is a Permitted Use in the IB
Industrial Business Zone.
Based on the evidence provided, the proposed sign will advertise
job opportunities and activities associated with businesses which
operate on the subject site. Therefore the proposed development
fits the definition of a Freestanding On-premises Sign pursuant to
Section 7.9(4) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
The proposed Freestanding On-premises Sign will be located to
comply with the setback requirements of the Edmonton Zoning
Bylaw.
Section 59.2(1)(c) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states that a
Sign shall not be erected, operated, used or maintained that uses
spot or reflector lights directed at on-coming traffic or displays
travelling or flashing messages that create a hazard to traffic on a
public roadway from which the Sign is visible.
The conditions imposed will ensure that the proposed On-premises
Freestanding Sign will not create a hazard to traffic on a public
roadway from which the Sign is visible.
Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the
proposed development would not unduly interfere with the
amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or
affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of
land.”
SDAB-D-11-134
5
July 28, 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.
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. S. Kwan, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
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
11634 – 86 Street NW
EDMONTON, AB T5B 3J6
DATE: July 28, 2011
APPLICATION NO: 109691666-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-11-116
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 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 heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on June 15, 2011 and July 13,
2011. The decision of the Board was as follows:
June 15, 2011 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 appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Appellant indicated that due to a family member’s medical condition
he would like to table his appeal hearing for at least one month.
MOTION:
that SDAB-D-11-116 be TABLED to July 13, 2011 at the verbal and
written request of the Appellant.”
SDAB-D-11-116
2
July 28, 2011
July 13, 2011 Hearing:
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-11-116 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 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 an Accessory Building (Detached
Garage) 12.19 metres by 5.48 metres, located at 11628 – 86 Street NW.
The subject site is zoned RF3 Low Density Development Zone and is
within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The application was refused
because of an excess in the maximum allowable Site Coverage for an
Accessory Building or Structure, the proposed Detached Garage is not
fully contained within the rear 12.8 metres of the Site and there shall be no
vehicular access from the front where an abutting lane exists and the Site
Width is less than 15.5 metres.
The Board notes that there were no letters of either support or objection
received.
The Board heard from Mr. Thivierge, the Appellant, who provided a
detailed written submission, a copy of which is on file. Mr. Thivierge
made the following points in support of the appeal:
1. He would be prepared to reduce the size of the proposed garage and
move it within the rear 12.8 metres of the site to eliminate two of the
three required variances but there is nothing he can do about the width
of this lot.
2. His mother currently lives in a two storey home two doors to the north
and he wants to turn this property over to her as she ages as a
bungalow will be more convenient.
3. Her current house has a front driveway and he would therefore like to
develop a front driveway on the subject property.
4. A front driveway has been developed on a lot located several lots to
the north of the subject site on the same block.
SDAB-D-11-116
3
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
5. The property to the north also had a front driveway until a recent fire.
6. The rear lane was developed in the 1920s and is very narrow. It was
not designed to accommodate parking, especially during the winter
months.
7. This is a turn of the century neighbourhood and the lane was designed
to access services not properties.
8. The site is located across the street from a school which is currently
used for teachers’ seminars and therefore people will park or stop on
the street in front of his house.
9. A new house has been constructed on the immediately adjacent lot to
the north which is at a higher grade. This results in water drainage
onto his front lawn.
10. It was his opinion that the development of a front driveway will help
to alleviate this problem.
11. There are no 15.5 metres wide lots in Parkdale. It is therefore unfair to
impose this requirement in this neighbourhood.
12. This is a unique neighbourhood located one block south of 118
Avenue. It is unsafe to use the rear lane because undesirable transients
use the rear lane.
13. Mr. Thivierge submitted 18 signatures of support and a letter of
support from the Edmonton Public School Board.
Mr. Thivierge provided the following responses to questions:
1. The proposed development will allow him to use his large garden on
the south side of his yard.
2. The development of a double garage immediately behind the principal
residence would take up his garden space which is very important to
him.
3. Safety will be improved if they are able to walk from the garage to the
front door of the house.
4. The house is 18 feet from the north property line which does not allow
enough space to develop a garage beside the house. The development
of an attached garage is cost prohibitive.
5. It was his opinion that the development requirement of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw to have a rear detached Garage fully contained within
the rear 12.8 metres of the lot creates a safety concern for vehicles
backing into the rear lane.
6. A front driveway exists on his mother’s lot which is only 38 feet wide
and his lot is substantially larger.
SDAB-D-11-116
4
July 28, 2011
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
7. His neighbour to the south had to demolish his garage that was built
prior to the implementation of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay
because it was too close to the rear lane.
8. Both houses with front driveways on this block also have detached
garages.
9. He would be prepared to move the garage 0.6 metres to comply with
the requirement to have the rear detached Garage fully contained
within the rear 12.8 metres.
10. He would also be prepared to reduce the size of the proposed detached
Garage to comply with the maximum allowable Site Coverage
requirement for an Accessory Building or Structure.
11. The front curb will not need to be cut to provide access to the
driveway.
12. A sidewalk will be constructed between the driveway and the front
door of the house.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the deficiency of 1.17 metres in the minimum required Site Width to allow
vehicular access from the front be permitted, subject to the following
conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
the Appellant shall submit a revised Site Plan to illustrate the
dimensions and location of the proposed Detached Garage to
comply with Section 50.3(3)(a) and Section 814.3(20) of the
Edmonton Zoning Bylaw on or before July 27, 2011;
the development of the proposed front driveway is subject to the
approval of the Transportation Services Department;
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 shall be installed and drainage must take place
entirely on subject property;
height of the garage shall not exceed 4.3 metres nor one storey;
exterior finish of the garage shall be made compatible with that of
the existing principal dwelling;
the Applicant shall 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.
SDAB-D-11-116
5
July 28, 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The proposed development is Accessory to a Permitted Use in the
RF3 Low Density Development Zone.
The Appellant is prepared to reduce the size of the proposed
Detached Garage and site the Garage within the rear 12.8 metres of
the Site to eliminate two of the required variances.
Front driveways have been developed on other properties with rear
detached garages in this same block and therefore the proposed
development is not uncharacteristic of this neighbourhood.
The proposed development will address the safety and drainage
concerns raised by the Appellant.
There were no letters of objection received and no one appeared in
opposition to the proposed development.
The Appellant submitted 18 signatures of support and a letter of
support from the Edmonton Public School Board.
Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the
proposed development would not unduly interfere with the
amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or
affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of
land.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
3.
A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
SDAB-D-11-116
6
July 28, 2011
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.
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. S. Kwan, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD