Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
P.O. Box 2100, Station M, # 8110,
Calgary, AB T2P 2M5
Email: [email protected]
CALGARY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
Citation: 2015 CGYSDAB 055
Case Name: SDAB2015-0055 (Re)
File No: DP2014-5414
Appeals by:
Erin Carpenter; Bruce A. Burns represented by Susan L. Robinson
Burns, Q.C. of Miles Davison LLP; Keith Macleod; Louise
Carbonneau; Lana Lovo; Scott Waterhouse; and Blake O’Brien
Appeal against:
Development Authority of The City of Calgary
Hearing date:
May 21, 2015 and June 25, 2015
Decision date:
June 29, 2015
Board members:
Stefne Madison, Presiding Officer
Kerry Armstrong
Katherine Camarta
Sally Haggis
Robert Sipka
DECISION
FILE NO. DP2014-5414
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0055
Basis of appeal:
These are appeals from an approval by the Development Authority for a development
permit made on the application of Homes by Avi for a new: single detached dwelling
at 4211 14A Street SW.
Description of Application:
The appeals before the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Board) deal with
an approval by the Development Authority of a development permit application for a
new single detached dwelling at 4211 14A Street SW. The property is located in the
community of Altadore and has a land use designation of Residential – Contextual One
Dwelling (R-C1) District.
Adjournment:
On March 21, 2015 the hearing commenced with consideration of procedural issues.
The Board adjourned the hearing to June 25, 2015 with the consent of all parties.
Hearing:
The Board heard verbal submissions from:
Carol McClary, representing the Development Authority;
Melissa Senek, of The City of Calgary Law department, legal counsel for the
Development Authority;
Kent Anderson, Q.C., of Miller Thomson LLP, legal counsel for the applicant and
property owners, opposed to the appeal;
Susan Burns, an appellant, in favour of the appeal; and
Teddy Nobles, legal counsel for Erin Carpenter, an appellant, in favour of the appeal.
Summary of Evidence:
The Board report forms part of the evidence presented to the Board. It contains the
Development Authority’s decision respecting the development permit application and
the materials submitted by the Development Authority that pertain to the application.
The Board report further contains the notices of appeal and the documents, materials or
written submissions of the appellants, applicant and any other party to the appeal.
Page 2 of 5
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2014-5414
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0055
Development Authority’s Submission
Ms. McClary, the Development Authority’s representative, submitted that the amended
plans presented to the Board at the hearing are substantially different than the decision
rendered plans approved by the Development Authority. In her opinion the amended
plans represent an entirely new development which requires a new development permit
application. She pointed out that the changes to the development are more than just
moving the home back on the property. There are significant changes to the front
facade and the floor plans.
Ms. Senek of The City of Calgary Law Department, counsel for the Development
Authority, recommended that the applicant withdraw their development permit
application and apply for a new development permit based on the amended plans
presented to the Board.
Applicant’s Submission
Mr. Anderson, counsel for the applicant and property owners, submitted
revised/amended plans to the Board. He described the changes to the proposed
development. In his opinion, the revisions to the decision-rendered plans are
insignificant. He stated the applicant consulted with the appellants regarding the
changes to the development. It addresses the concerns of the appellants and the
appellants are all in agreement with these new plans and the changes made. In his
opinion the application therefore would merit the Board’s approval.
Appellants’ and Affected Persons’ Submissions
Ms. Burns, an appellant, and Mr. Nobles, counsel representing Ms. Carpenter, an
appellant, spoke with respect to the revised/amended plans and the changes to the
development. They submitted that after discussions with the applicant and property
owners, the appellants are in agreement with the changes. The appellants are in favour
of the amended plans as the development now complies with the restrictive covenant
and fits within the existing streetscape.
Decision:
In determining this appeal, the Board:



Complied with the provincial legislation and land use policies, applicable statutory
plans and, subject to variation by the Board, The City of Calgary Land Use Bylaw
1P2007, as amended, and all other relevant City of Calgary Bylaws;
Had regard to the subdivision and development regulations;
Considered all the relevant planning evidence presented at the hearing and the
arguments made; and
Page 3 of 5
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2014-5414

APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0055
Considered the circumstances and merits of the application.
1. Development permit DP2014-5414 is revoked and, therefore, is null and void.
2. The appeals are struck.
Reasons:
1 The Board considered the written, verbal, and photographic evidence submitted, and
notes that the appeals pertain to the Development Authority’s approval of a
development permit for a new single detached dwelling at 4211 14A Street SW. The
property is located in the community of Altadore and has a land use designation of
Residential – Contextual One Dwelling (R-C1) District pursuant to Land Use Bylaw
1P2007.
Preliminary Issue
2 The Board first deals with the preliminary issue of whether or not to accept the
amended plans presented by the applicant at the hearing.
3 Based on a review of the new drawings presented to the Board at the hearing, the
Board finds that the proposed development is significantly different than the
plans/drawings approved by the Development Authority. For example, the changes
included, but were not limited to, different sizes and numbers of windows, different
garage size and placement, front façade and location of the development on the lot.
The plans/drawings presented to the Board were also incomplete.
4 Therefore it is the finding of the Board that the new plans/drawings constituted an new
development that would require a new application to the Development Authority.
5 After the preliminary ruling the applicant advised that it would like to withdraw the
subject development permit application and that they would no longer pursue the
application as approved. The Board accepts this evidence for the purpose of the
appeal.
Legislative Framework
6 In rendering its decision the Board has particular regard to section 687(3) of the
Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26, as amended, which states in part:
687(3) In determining an appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board
(a)
[…]
(a.1)
[…]
Page 4 of 5
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2014-5414
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0055
(b)
[…]
(c)
may confirm, revoke or vary the order, decision or issue or confirm the
issue of a development permit or any condition attached to any of them
or make or substitute an order, decision or permit of its own;
(d)
[…]
Analysis
7 The Board finds that the applicant has no intention to proceed with the development
permit DP2014-5414, which was approved by the Development Authority for the
proposed development.
8 Pursuant to section 687(3)(c) of the Municipal Government Act, the Board finds it is
thus warranted to overturn the decision of the Development Authority and to revoke
development permit DP2014-5414.
9 For the above reasons, the Board overturns the decision of the Development
Authority and revokes the development permit.
Conclusion
10 The development permit DP2014-5414 is revoked and, therefore, is null and void.
11 For the above reasons the appeals are struck.
___________________________________
Stefne Madison, Presiding Officer
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
Issued on this 29th day of June, 2015
Page 5 of 5
ISC: Unrestricted