Subdivision and Office of the City Clerk
Development Appeal Board 3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: November 30, 2007
11013 – 126 Street APPLICATION NO: 71534446-001
EDMONTON, AB T5M 0P8 FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-285
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated October 17, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission to:
Construct additions to a Single Detached House (rebuilding front porch; new roof, dormers and balcony)
on Lot 18, Block 47, Plan RN39B, located at 11013 – 126 Street, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on November 15, 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 additions to a Single Detached House (rebuilding front porch; new roof, dormers and balcony), located at 11013 – 126 Street. The subject site is zoned DC1 Direct Development Control Provision. The refusal is based on a deficiency in the minimum required Front Yard, a deficiency in the minimum required Site Area, a deficiency in the minimum required Site Width and deficiencies in the minimum required Side Yards.
The Board heard from one of the Appellants, Ms. Dawn Stiles-Oldring, accompanied by Mr. John McLachlin, her general contractor for the proposed development.
In addition to the documentation previously provided by the Appellants, Ms. Stiles-Oldring presented photographs of neighbouring homes showing the front yard setback including a listing of homes and addresses together with the front yard setback details of each property. Letters of support of the proposed development were provided from their immediately adjacent neighbours.
SDAB-D-07-285 2 November 30, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
Ms. Stiles-Oldring also provided signatures of support from 14 neighbours residing within the 60 metres notification radius as well as a letter of support from the West Ingle Community League, through their president.
The Presiding Officer explained to the Appellant that there is a preliminary issue in the appeal, that being whether or not the Development Officer followed the intent of the DC1 Direct Development Control Provision and the directions of City Council in regards to their decision and using their discretion regarding conformability and acceptability. The Board felt that the Development Officer erred in failing to consider using his or her discretion with regard to a non-conforming building. Therefore, the Board would allow the hearing to proceed.
Ms. Stiles-Oldring explained that their home was an older home with heritage value for itself as well as for the neighbourhood. Their intention was not to change the character of the home but rather to upgrade this 95-year old home to conform with their living and family requirements. She explained that a previous permit had been approved for the repair and maintenance of the foundation which required the removal of the front porch. She also explained that the on-going deterioration of the existing roof and the exterior of the building required repairs or replacement.
In response to questions from the Board as to whether or not these issues were upgrades or increasing the size of the building, the Appellant advised that she felt that they could be classified as maintenance as they were required with modifications. These modifications would perhaps increase some of the interior living space but would not enlarge or change the position or footprint of the house.
She also stated that they had on-going consultation with all of the neighbours who supported them as evidenced by the written document provided. She noted that included amongst their neighbours were three professional architects and that provided encouragement that whatever they were proposing was a positive move for their home.
Mr. John McLachlin, the general contractor, in response to questions regarding the timing of the proposed development, advised that the project was being accomplished in two stages – the repair of the foundation would be completed within this calendar year. He noted that the repair/maintenance issues regarding the exterior work and the roof would be completed as weather conditions permitted.
SDAB-D-07-285 3 November 30, 2007
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the following variances be permitted:
1. the deficiency of 11.82 square metres in minimum required Site Area;
2. the deficiency of 4.38 metres in minimum required Site Width;
3. the deficiency of 0.75 metres in minimum required Front Yard;
4. the deficiency of 0.39 metres in the minimum required south Side Yard; and
5. the deficiency of 0.6 metres in the minimum required north Side Yard.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development is an addition to an Allowable Use in the DC1 Direct Development Control Provision.
2. The residence located on the subject site is non-conforming as it was constructed prior to the enactment of the DC1 Direct Development Control Provision.
3. In the opinion of the Board, the Development Officer failed to consider the exercise of discretion allowed by Section 643 of the Municipal Government Act and Section 11.3 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw and for this reason failed to follow the directions of City Council as provided by Section 641.4(b) of the Municipal Government Act.
4. The footprint of the existing house is not being changed and the re-building is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
5. The block face will not be altered by the proposed development and the development on the subject site will blend in well with the streetscape.
6. There was written support from the majority of adjacent neighbours and a representative of the community league.
7. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-07-285 4 November 30, 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, located on the 5th 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.
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:
SDAB-D-07-285 5 November 30, 2007
(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.
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 5th Floor, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-07-285 6 November 30, 2007
(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. A. Zariski, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
cc: John McLachlin
Mr. & Mr. W. Oldring
Subdivision and Office of the City Clerk
Development Appeal Board 3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: November 30, 2007
3534 - 122 Avenue APPLICATION NO: 71966084-001
EDMONTON, AB T5W 1P8 FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-286
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated October 23, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission to:
Park a vehicle in a Required Front Yard
on Lot 9, Block 26, Plan 5813KS, located at 3534 – 122 Avenue, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on November 15, 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 park a vehicle in a Required Front Yard, located at 3534 – 122 Avenue. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The application was refused because the proposed parking space in the required front yard does not comply with the requirements of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
The Board heard from Mr. Dwayne Babee, the Appellant and property owner. He reiterated his request to be able to park his work truck on a cement pad located in the front yard of the subject site.
Mr. Babee provided the following information to the Board:
1. There are a number of houses within the surrounding area which have cement pads in the front yard. Some of these cement pads are driveways to rear detached garages.
SDAB-D-07-286 2 November 30, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
2. To his knowledge, only one neighbour had lodged a complaint with regard to parking in the front yard. When he spoke to him, the neighbour told him that he felt the bylaw regulations were being disregarded. He felt that by Mr. Babee doing so, his property value may be affected.
3. He also mentioned that, if necessary, he would consider only parking in the front yard during the winter months. He said that he had run an extension cord from his residence across the sidewalk to his truck last winter. He was concerned that placing an extension cord across the sidewalk contravened regulations contained in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw. He noted that the cord also froze to the sidewalk and had to be cut off.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Babee noted the following:
1. The Edmonton Zoning Bylaw does not allow for parking a vehicle in the Required Front Yard of a private residence.
2. He stated that there is a two-car double garage in the rear of the residence. One side of the garage is used to house a vehicle used by his wife and the other side is for storage. In the front of the side of the garage used for storage he has a work trailer parked that contains equipment used in his occupation.
3. He noted that, in the past, he has parked vehicles behind the garage, next to the lane, and has suffered vandalism and theft and this resulted in his concerns about his truck used for work. He expressed his concern about his work trailer, as well, given it contained equipment used in his occupation.
4. The existing cement pad was laid in the spring of 2007 and did not require a development permit.
The Board Officer was asked to research two neighbouring properties as to whether or not they had development permits to park in the front yard. A check of planning records showed no development permits.
In response to further questions, Mr. Babee provided the following:
1. His current double-car garage is not high enough to allow him to park his truck in it. He would need to make structural changes in the garage door to allow the truck to be parked in the garage.
SDAB-D-07-286 3 November 30, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
2. He stated that the trailer is often parked in a lot approximately three blocks from the residence where his wife is employed. However, he again reiterated that he would not want to park the truck in the rear yard due to the fear of vandalism or damage.