0
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
11816 – 139 Street NW
DATE: August 1, 2008
APPLICATION NO: 78043867-001
EDMONTON, AB T5L 2B7 FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-164
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated June 23, 2008, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission to:
Construct a Detached Garage with Garage Suite and Demolish an Existing Detached Garage on Lot 2, Block 18, Plan 5844HW, located at 11816 – 139 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 17, 2008. The decision of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority to refuse an application to c onstruct a Detached Garage with Garage
Suite and Demolish an Existing Detached Garage, located at 11816 – 139
Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential
Zone and falls within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The application was refused because the location of this lot does not meet the specified requirements for a garage suite, an excess in the maximum allowable Height for a garage containing a garage suite, a deficiency in the minimum Side Yard requirement, a deficiency in the minimum distance between a detached garage containing a garage suite and the principal dwelling, a deficiency of the detached garage being fully contained within the rear 12.8 metres of the site, an excess in the allowable Height and an excess in the number of allowable storeys for an Accessory Building or
Structure.
The Board heard from the Appellant, Ms. Arlene Beausoleil, who submitted a petition of support and photographs of existing garages in the neighbourhood that are similar in size and height to their proposal. She and her husband have applied to construct a 30 by 28 foot garage with a suite on the proposed second storey.

SDAB-D-08-164 2
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
August 1, 2008
Ms. Beausoleil provided the following information in support of the appeal:
1.
Although the subject site does not meet the definition of a corner
2.
lot pursuant to the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, it was her opinion that the configuration of the subject site is very similar to a corner lot because there is a public road at the front of the subject site and there are lanes to both the south and to the west of the subject site.
The height of the proposed garage suite to the peak of the roof is
6.0198 metres but an accurate height calculation to the midpoint of
3.
the roof could not be provided because they are waiting for an approval of the Development Permit before having plans drawn up.
The height of the proposed garage to the peak of the roof is 3 feet higher than the height of the principal residence to the peak of the roof, but it will not be higher than the peak of the roof of the principal residence that they plan to construct on the subject site in a few years.
4.
5.
They are prepared to comply with the required minimum 1.2 metres side yard for the detached garage.
The distance between the existing principal dwelling and the proposed detached garage is more than 3.0 metres. If the existing house is renovated or a new house built on the site, the minimum required separation distance will be maintained at not less than 3.0 metres.
6.
7.
The existing detached garage does not meet the minimum rear yard requirement because it was built prior to the implementation of the
Mature Neighbourhood Overlay.
The existing garage on their neighbour’s property does not comply with the minimum rear yard requirement.
The new garage will be constructed with the same setback as the 8.
existing garage.
9.
If the garage suite is not allowed, they would still like to proceed with the construction of a new garage.
10.
Numerous photographs of similar garages in the neighbourhood were submitted. Specifically, a photograph of an existing garage located at 13936 – 119 Avenue, containing a hobby shop on the second storey. The peak of this garage roof is substantially higher than the bungalow on that site.

SDAB-D-08-164 3
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
August 1, 2008
11. Ms. Beausoleil spoke with 26 neighbours in the area and submitted a petition of support signed by 17 neighbours within the 60 metre notification radius. The petition includes the signatures of the most affected neighbours who reside immediately north and across the lane to the south of the subject site.
Ms. Beausoleil provided the following responses to questions:
1.
2.
They would like to maintain the existing setback from the rear lane so that the landscaped yard on the south side of the lot can be maintained as a recreational area for the family.
The garage will be finished to match the finish of the new principal dwelling which they plan to construct on the subject site in a few years.
3.
4.
The proposed suite is smaller than the proposed footprint of the proposed detached garage. Specific details could not be provided because detailed plans have not yet been prepared.
The proposed dormers will look onto their property and the
5.
6.
proposed window on the lane will overlook a neighbouring property to the west at 13907 – 119 Avenue. That neighbour has provided support for the development and has indicated that the location of the window is not a concern.
If the garage suite is not allowed, they would still like to construct a 28 feet by 30 feet garage.
Ms. Beausoleil also indicated that if the garage suite is not allowed they would like to construct a two storey garage with the same dimensions and height as the proposed garage suite, and that the second storey will be used as a loft for storage space.
DECISION: that the appeal be ALLOWED IN PART and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the excess of 2.51 metres in the requirement that a Detached Garage be fully contained within the rear 12.8 metres of the Site, the excess of
0.22 metres and one storey in the maximum allowable Height for an
Accessory Building or Structure be permitted, subject to the following conditions:
1.
the north Side Yard shall be 1.2 metres;

SDAB-D-08-164 4 August 1, 2008
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
2.
3.
4.
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; 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; 5.
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 RF1
Zone.
2.
Section 110.3(2) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw sets out the following Discretionary Use within the RF1 Zone:
“110.3(2) Garage Suites on corner lots; and lots fronting onto a service road; or where a Side or Rear Lot Line abuts a Site in an
Industrial, Commercial, Row Housing or Apartment Zone, or is not separated from it by a public roadway more than 10.0 metres wide.”
3.
Based on the evidence provided, the subject site does not fit the definition of Corner Lot pursuant to Section 6.1(16) of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw which reads as follows:
“6.1(16) Corner Lot means:
(a) a Lot located at the intersection of two public roadways, other than Lanes; or
(b) a Lot located abutting a public roadway, other than a Lane, which changes direction at any point where it abuts the lot;
Provided that in both cases the Lot shall not be considered a
Corner Lot where the contained angle formed by the intersection or change of direction is an angle of more than 135 degrees. In the case of a curved corner, the angle shall be determined by the lines tangent to the property line abutting the public roadways, provided

SDAB-D-08-164 5 August 1, 2008
REASONS FOR DECISION (CONTINUED): the roadway is not a Lane, at the point which is the extremity of that property line. In the case of a curved corner, the point which is the actual corner of the Lot shall be that point on the property line abutting the public roadway, provided the roadway is not a Lane, which is nearest to the point of intersection of the tangent lines.
4.
Section 687(3)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Government Act states that in determining an appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board 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. The proposed development does not conform with the prescribed use for this lot in an RF1 Zone.
5.
Since the subject site is not a corner lot, the proposed development does not conform with the prescribed Discretionary Use for the subject site in an RF1 Zone. Since the proposed garage suite development is neither a Permitted nor a Discretionary Use in the
RF1 Zone, the Board does not have the power to issue a Development
Permit for a garage suite on the subject site.
6.
The variance being allowed in the requirement that the Detached
Garage be fully contained within the rear 12.8 metres of the site is consistent with the rear setback of other garages along the rear lane.
7.
Based on the petition of support submitted by the Appellant, the majority of neighbours support the variances required to construct a garage with or without a suite.
8.
The condition requiring the minimum Side Yard to be 1.2 metres will mitigate the impact of the permitted excess Height of the proposed
Accessory Building.
8. Based on all of the above, the proposed development would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

SDAB-D-08-164 6 August 1, 2008
2.
The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.
3.
When an application for a development permit has been approved by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until: a) any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
4.
Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, if the permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed.
5.
Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum development permit.
6.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal
Government Act, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:
(1) Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:
(a) a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
(b) the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision appeal under this Division.
(2) An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:
(a) the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
Appeal Board; and
(b) any other persons that the judge directs.

SDAB-D-08-164 7 August 1, 2008
(3) On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance of success.
(4) If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may
(a) direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to the appeal.
(b) specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be appealed, and
(c) make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers appropriate.
(5) If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and the board and municipality:
(a) are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal, and
(b) are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is granted, at the appeal.
NOTE:
(1) When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street,
Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
(2) When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.
Mr. B. Schloss, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD

SDAB-S-08-003
Application No. 73182024-018
An appeal by to c reate one 10.11 hectares industrial lot on a portion of NE 22-
53-23-4, located south of 137 Avenue, north of Yellowhead Trail at the easterly city limits , was WITHDRAWN

0
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
3511 – 11 Avenue
DATE: August 1, 2008
APPLICATION NO: 73380548-001
EDMONTON, AB T6L 2L5 FILE NO.: SDAB-D-08-156
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated June 4, 2008, from the decision of the Development Officer to:
Comply with a Stop Order to cease the general industrial use (metal fabrication) and general contractor service (roofing business) and remove all material, equipment, vehicles and accessory buildings used for storage for these activities on Lot 17, Block 94, Plan RN50, located at 11344 – 85 Street, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 10 and July 17, 2008. The decision of the Board was as follows:
July 10, 2008
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer to issue a Stop Order to cease the general industrial use (metal fabrication) and general contractor service (roofing business) and remove all material, equipment, vehicles and accessory buildings used for storage for these activities located at 11344 – 85 Street. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low
Rise Apartment Zone.
The Board heard from Ms. Vicki Wong, representing Ms. Amelia Leung, the owner of the property at 11344 – 85 Street. Ms. Wong stated the following:
1.
2.
Amelia is her niece.
Ms. Wong was the original owner and owned this property for
3.
three decades.
Her age and failing health have resulted in the property being sold to Amelia who is now responsible for these matters.

SDAB-D-08-156 2
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
4.
August 1, 2008
Ms. Wong asked that the matter be adjourned because Amelia
Leung is unavailable today. She is unwell and has requested assistance from her Legal Counsel who is also not able to attend today’s hearing.
5.
The Board notes a copy of a letter sent to Amelia Leung from Mr.
Robert Neufeld, Barrister & Solicitor, advising that he could not provide any assistance to her until after July 14, 2008.
Amelia’s mother, Ms. Monica Leung, provided the following information:
1.
She paid the required appeal fee and took care of all the paper work for her daughter, Amelia. She indicated that Amelia may not
2.
have always been aware of all of the activity she was undertaking on her behalf.
Amelia has two jobs and a medical condition that has prevented her from dealing with this matter in an earlier time frame.
3.
She has received letters from the medical experts but did not bring those to the hearing today.
The Chair then noted two legal issues. The first issue is one of late filing and the second issue is the absence of a specific date for compliance included in the Stop Order, which is required pursuant to Section 645(2) of the Municipal Government Act.
The Board then heard from persons in attendance who opposed the adjournment of this appeal hearing.
Mr. Rick Hachigian, representing the Planning and Development
Department made the following points:
1. The Appellant has had ample time to obtain legal advice since the
Stop Order was issued on June 4, 2008. Legal Counsel was not contacted until July 2, 2008, nearly one month after the issuance of the Stop Order. It was his opinion that if the property owner was
2. sincere, she should have taken action sooner.
There were a number of affected property owners in attendance today and they should not be inconvenienced.
Mr. Ryan Pleckaitis, representing the Municipal Enforcement Department, spoke against the adjournment of this hearing and stated that the use and condition of this property has caused problems in this neighbourhood for years and that the appeal should be heard sooner rather than later.

SDAB-D-08-156 3
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
August 1, 2008
The Chair then asked if the other neighbours in attendance agreed with the statements made by Mr. Hachigian and Mr. Pleckaitis. Nine neighbours who were in attendance supported the statements made by Mr. Hachigian and Mr. Pleckaitis and opposed an adjournment of the hearing.
Mr. Bertram, a neighbouring property owner, stated that he does not want to come back and he objected to a further delay.
Ms. Wong then requested a copy of the Delegation List.
The Board heard from Mr. Arvid Stensland, an affected neighbour, who resides across the alley from the subject property. He advised the Board that he has lived at this property for 16 years. He indicated that he was concerned about a list of names and addresses being provided to Ms.
Wong because of security concerns.
The Board Officer then advised that the FOIP Coordinator will be contacted regarding the request by Ms. Wong to provide her with a copy of the Delegation List.
DECISION: that SDAB-D-08-156 be TABLED to July 17, 2008 at the written request of the Appellant
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Legal Counsel for the
2.
3.
Appellant stating that he would not be available until after July 14,
2008.
There may, in fact, be legal issues involved in the merits of the appeal upon which legal arguments may be presented. This reinforces the request of the Appellant to be represented by Legal
Counsel.
The Appellant’s solicitor is not available until after July 14, 2008, and therefore the appeal is tabled until July 17, 2008.”
July 17, 2008
SDAB-D-08-156
“that SDAB-D-08-156 be raised from the table”
4 August 1, 2008

SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“The Presiding Officer 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.
Ms. Wong advised the Board that the appeal was filed within 7 days of receiving the Stop Order.
Mr Hachigian submitted a document from the Canada Post Data
Warehouse confirming that the Stop Order was delivered by Registered
Mail to Ms. Amelia Leung on May 27, 2008.
The 14 day appeal period would then have ended on June 10, 2008, and the appeal was filed on June 4, 2008.
Therefore the appeal was filed within the allowable 14 days.
MOTION:
“that the Board assume jurisdiction pursuant to Section 686(1) of the
Municipal Government Act.
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
The Board proceeded to deal with the validity of the Stop Order. The
Board referred to a letter dated July 15, 2008 received from Mr. J. Robert
Neufeld, Legal Counsel for the Appellants. Relevant portions of the letter were read into the record.
Mr. Neufeld submitted that a) Section 645(2) of the Municipal
Government Act sets out, among other things, that if a Development
Officer finds that a use is not in accordance with the Development
Permit, the Development Authority may by written notice order the owner, the person in possession of the land, or the person responsible for the contravention, or any or all of them, to stop such use within the time set out in the Notice, and b) that the Stop Order is null and void because there was no reference in it as to time for compliance within the Stop
Order.
The Board then heard from Ms. Vicki Wong who indicated her agreement with Mr. Neufeld’s opinion and stated that the Stop Order should be considered null and void.

SDAB-D-08-156
SUMMARY OF HEARING (CONTINUED):
5 August 1, 2008
The Board then heard from Mr. Hachigian, from the Planning and
Development Department on this issue. He suggested that although there was no date set for compliance in the Stop Order, that the date was implicit by nature of the activities being carried out at the premises, all of which were neither permitted nor discretionary uses in the RA7 Low Rise
Apartment Zone in which the property is located.
Mr. Hachigian further submitted that the Development Authority cannot approve an extension for a use which is neither permitted nor discretionary within the Zone. An extension of a non-permitted use would have been effectively granted if a date for compliance had been included in the Stop Order. Therefore a date for compliance with the
Stop Order could not be included in this Stop Order. It was his further submission that it is an implicit term of the Stop Order that the activities in question must cease on the date that the Stop Order is received.
In rebuttal, Ms. Leung asked the Board to accept Mr. Neufeld’s submission. Ms. Wong submitted that the Order is an error in law.
DECISION: that the appeal be ALLOWED and the STOP ORDER IS NULL AND VOID
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. Section 645(2) of the follows:
Municipal Government Act reads as
If subsection (1) applies, the development authority may, by written notice, order the owner, the person in possession of the land or building or the person responsible for the contravention, or any or all of them to
(a) stop the development or use of the land or building in whole or in part as directed by the notice,
(b) demolish, remove or replace the development, or
SDAB-D-08-156
REASONS FOR DECISION (CONTINUED):
6 August 1, 2008

(c) carry out any other actions required by the notice so that the development or use of the land or building complies with this Part, the land use bylaw or regulations under this
Part, a development permit or a subdivision approval, within the time set out in the notice.
2. Based on the evidence provided, a date for compliance was not set out in the Stop Order issued to Amelia Leung on May 13, 2008.
3. The Board accepts the submission provided by Mr. Neufeld, Legal
Counsel for the Appellants, that failure to include any reference to time for compliance with the Stop Order within the Stop
Order, renders the Stop Order null and void.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.
3.
When an application for a development permit has been approved by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until: a) any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
4.
Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, if the permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed.
5.
Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum development permit.
SDAB-D-08-156 7 August 1, 2008
6.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal
Government Act, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:

(1) Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:
(a) a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
(b) the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision appeal under this Division.
(2) An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:
(a) the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
Appeal Board; and
(b) any other persons that the judge directs.
(3) On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance of success.
(4) If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may
(a) direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to the appeal.
(b) specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be appealed, and
(c) make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers appropriate.
(5) If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and the board and municipality:
(a) are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal, and
(b) are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is granted, at the appeal.

SDAB-D-08-156
NOTE:
8 August 1, 2008
(1) When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street,
Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
(2) When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.
Mr. B. Schloss, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD cc: