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
DATE: November 28, 2013
APPLICATION NO: 142819242-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-13-275
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated October 18, 2013, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Convert a Single Detached House into a Child Care Services Use – Panda Cub House Childcare
Centre
on Lot 52, Block 58, Plan 0621532, located at 16203 – 55 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on November 13, 2013. 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 convert a Single Detached House into a Child
Care Services Use – Panda Cub House Childcare Centre, located at 16203
– 55 Street NW. The subject site is zoned RSL Residential Small Lot
Zone. The proposed development permit application was refused because
the proposed development is located adjacent to Single Detached Housing
and is not in a preferred location, a deficiency in the number of required
drop-off parking spaces, information on exterior lighting for the facility
has not been provided, information on floor plans showing the indoor play
and rest areas, the lack of a Site Plan showing the required on-site parking,
drop-off facilities, on-site outdoor play areas, including the location and
type of fixed play equipment, as well as fencing, landscaping and any
SDAB-D-13-275
2
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
buffering has not been provided, a deficiency in the number of required
parking spaces, a deficiency in the number of required loading spaces, a
deficiency in the number of required bicycle parking spaces, and it is the
opinion of the Development Authority that the backyard play space may
interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties of nearby residents.
The Board notes that two letters were received in opposition to the
proposed development.
The Board heard from Ms. Magracia and Ms. Kahulugan, representing the
Appellant, Panda Cub House Childcare Centre, who together made the
following points:
1. They provided the Board with photographs illustrating the aesthetics
of the interior of the subject Site for a Childcare Centre, marked
Exhibit A.
2. They stated that they are joint owners and operators of the subject Site
and the proposed development.
3. They clarified that the proposed Child Care service is for 23 children
and not 45 children as stated in the original application.
4. The basement in the house is not developed and they provided a main
floor plan outlining the rooms for the childcare operation.
5. They provided the Board with a written submission of their
presentation and addressed the reasons of refusal.
6. With regard to refusal No. 1, Section 80(1) and the location of the
proposed development, they stated that although the subject Site is
located adjacent to Single Detached Housing, the proposed
development is situated in a good location on a corner site and across
the street from a public school.
7. With regard to refusal No. 2, Section 80(6), the deficiency of six dropoff spaces, they received the consent and permission of their
neighbours to use their driveways for an additional two drop-off
spaces.
8. They stated that there are additional drop-off spaces, two near the bus
stop on 162 Avenue and 53 Street and two more drop-off spaces across
the street along 162 Avenue near a community mailbox.
9. With regard to refusal No. 3, Section 80(7) and the exterior lighting,
they stated that the rear yard is well lit due to the close proximity of an
existing street lamp and an outdoor light near the back door which
provides light to the rear yard. In their opinion, the area will be well
lit and they are willing to install additional lighting if required.
SDAB-D-13-275
3
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
10. With regard to refusal No. 4, Section 80(8)(d) and 15(3), the proposed
development may interfere with the enjoyment of the properties of
nearby residents, they stated that the neighbourhood is a young
working class community, many of whom have young children that
require childcare during the day while they are at work.
11. They provided the Board with 17 signatures, 15 within the 60 metre
notification radius, from neighbouring property owners in support of
the proposed development.
12. They intend to operate a curriculum and classroom routine instruction
with the community in mind.
13. The students will have different outdoor play times during regular
working hours to keep the noise levels down.
14. The Childcare Centre will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the
pick-up and drop-off hours will be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., which will take approximately five to
twenty minutes at a time.
15. In their opinion, the traffic related to the drop-off and pick-up times
will not conflict with the ETS service in the area.
16. The neighbourhood is currently a high traffic area at peak-hours.
17. The noise associated with children is routine for this particular location
as there is a K to 9 public School across the street from 162 Avenue,
which is a bus route.
18. The indoor and outdoor play areas have been approved by Alberta
Health Services.
19. With regard to refusal No. 5, Section 80(9), that Floor Plans have not
been provided, they stated that they provided Floor Plans illustrating
additional proposed windows to the Floor Plan to the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board on November 12, 2013.
20. With regard to refusal No. 6, Section 54.2, Schedule 1(31), that three
vehicular staff parking spaces are required, they stated that four
employees are family members and will carpool to the Childcare
Centre and that two other employees live nearby and will use public
transportation.
21. They stated that only one parking space will be used by staff of the
Childcare Centre.
22. With regard to refusal No. 7, Section 54.4, Schedule 3(2) that one
loading space is required, they stated that the Childcare Centre is
developed in accordance with the Alberta Health Services Guidelines,
Childcare licensing regulations, and the Childcare Licensing Act.
There is not a requirement for a designated loading area.
SDAB-D-13-275
4
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
23. With regard to refusal No. 8, Section 54.3, Schedule 2(1), that five
bicycle parking spaces are required, they stated that given the age of
the children attending the Childcare Centre, it is not likely that they
will arrive by bicycle; however, they are prepared to install a bicycle
rack on the side of the property adjacent to the front entrance if
required.
24. They reiterated that 167 Avenue has an increase of activity and noise
which is normal for this area.
25. They drove by several Childcare facilities to view the pick-up and
drop-off of children and confirmed that drop-off takes place in front of
the facility on the street.
In response to questions by the Board, Ms. Magracia and Ms. Kahulugan
provided the following information:
1. They confirmed that the Childcare Centre is for 23 children. They
would like to expand the number of children to 45 at some future point
and will reapply at a later date.
2. The daycares located in the neighbourhood are all full and have
waiting lists. They would like to provide a childcare service to the
community and reiterated that this location has an advantage with a
school being located across the street.
3. They confirmed that noise from the school across the street is present
throughout the days there will be children at play and congestion exists
and they do not believe that the operation will further add to those
issues.
4. They have received approval from Alberta Health Services for 23
children at the Centre.
5. They clarified that four employees will commute together, three of
which are family members and one is a friend.
6. They confirmed that there are two parking spaces available in the
garage, two on the street, and two on the front driveway.
7. The confirmed that there is only one exterior light by the rear door and
they are willing to install more lighting if required.
8. They purchased the property in the summer and need to determine
where additional lighting may be required.
9. They intend to schedule their outdoor activities in the morning and
early afternoon.
10. The property owners/operators of the Childcare Centre will manage
and adapt to changes as needed.
SDAB-D-13-275
5
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
11. Alberta Health Services indicated that the play centre in the rear yard
had to be removed due to it being unsafe. There currently is no fixed
play centre in the rear yard.
12. They confirmed that the rear yard is securely enclosed by a 6 foot high
fence separating the play area from roadways, adjacent properties and
narrow side yards that could not be easily supervised.
13. They confirmed that there will be no issues for residents to pick up
their mail when parents pick-up or drop-off their children near the
community mailbox.
14. They stated that staff from the Childcare Centre will drop-off and
pick-up children who attend the school across the street.
15. They stated that they are willing to install a bike rack on the grass
south of the main entrance door next to the south fence line.
16. They confirmed that they have no intention to expand the Childcare
Centre to the basement at this time.
17. They confirmed that there will be no individuals residing in the
dwelling.
18. The Childcare Centre is currently not operating until they receive
approval for the Centre.
19. With regard to the petition; one neighbour signed the petition in
support of the proposed development and has now sent in a letter of
opposition. They stated that they will speak to that neighbour to
address any concerns they may have.
20. They stated that they want to be part of the community and want to
participate in the community.
21. They confirmed that if parents are not parking where they are required
to do so, their license plate can be provided by concerned residents for
staff of the Childcare Centre to address.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the deficiency of 2 drop-off parking spaces, the deficiency of 1 employee
parking space, the deficiency of one loading space, and the deficiency of 5
bicycle parking spaces be permitted, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed Childcare Service Centre shall have a maximum of 23
children.
SDAB-D-13-275
6
November 28, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development is a Discretionary Use in the RSL
Residential Small Lot Zone.
2. Based on the evidence submitted, the proposed development meets the
location criteria as outlined in Section 80.1 of the Edmonton Zoning
Bylaw, being a corner site abutting a collector or arterial road and
being adjacent to a school.
3. Based on the evidence submitted, the required number of drop-off
spaces is 4 based on 23 children. In addition to the two driveway
parking spaces, there are two on-street parking spaces on 162 Avenue
and that the drop-off will occur prior to the start of the school
operation across the street.
4. The Board is satisfied that sufficient lighting will be provided.
5. The Board is satisfied that the concerns related to noise are
ameliorated with staggered outdoor play times subsumed by the noise
already present by the school across the street.
6. The Board is satisfied that the parking requirements for employees will
be met as there is room for parking within the garage of the subject
Site.
7. The Board is satisfied that the loading will occur outside the hours of
the operation of the Childcare Centre.
8. The Board is satisfied that bicycle parking spaces will not be needed
given the age of the children.
9. A petition with 18 signatures was received from neighbouring property
owners, including the most adjacent property owners, in support of the
proposed development stating that there is a need for childcare in the
neighbourhood.
10. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the proposed
development will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
neighbourhood nor 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.
SDAB-D-13-275
7
November 28, 2013
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 Sustainable Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
Mr. N. Somerville, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
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
DATE: November 28, 2013
APPLICATION NO: 143553184-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-13-276
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated October 22, 2013, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Develop a Secondary Suite (Basement suite) in a Single Detached House, existing without
permits
on Lot 8, Block 36, Plan ND, located at 11030 – 95 Street NW, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on November 13, 2013. The decision of the
Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
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 develop a Secondary Suite (Basement suite) in a
Single Detached House, existing without permits, located at 11030 – 95
Street NW. The subject site is zoned RF6 Medium Density Multiple
Family Zone and is within the Medium Scale Residential Infill Overlay.
The development permit application was refused because of a deficiency
in the minimum Site Area for a Single Detached Dwelling containing a
Secondary Suite and a deficiency in the number of required parking
spaces.
The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to
the proposed development.
SDAB-D-13-276
2
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
At the outset of the hearing, one of the Board Members indicated that they
were an acquaintance of Mr. Hachigian; however, he did not have an issue
to hear the appeal. All parties in attendance at the hearing did not have an
issue with this Board Member hearing the appeal.
The Board heard from Ms. Mulrooney, representing the Appellant,
Tomboy Construction, who was accompanied by Mr. Zenkewich, the
property owner, and Mr. Hachigian, who together made the following
points:
1. Mr. Zenkewich stated that he is the property owner and does not own a
vehicle.
2. He purchased the property due to the location of the house being in
close proximity to public transit system.
3. It was his understanding that the Secondary Suite in the basement was
grandfathered in.
4. The main floor of the dwelling is liveable but the basement level is
derelict.
5. He stated that the Fire Department has some concerns with the
Secondary Suite and requires it to be brought to code.
6. They addressed all of the concerns of the Fire Department, specifically
egress access with respect the windows.
7. They hired a contractor and committed to a $75,000 renovation
investment to the basement which is a unique development as the
original structure has two front entrances, two rear entrances, and ten
foot high ceilings in the basement.
8. The dwelling is intended to accommodate two families.
9. They are unable to address the Site Area deficiency, which is
characteristic of the area; however, they provided the Board with
information to address the parking deficiency. One vehicle can be
parked in the garage, one can be parked in the driveway, and there is
sufficient on-street parking, given that this is a corner lot.
In response to questions by the Board, Ms. Mulrooney, Mr. Zenkewich,
and Mr. Hachigian provided the following information:
1. The house was built in 1949 and purchased a year and a half ago.
2. They stated that there are several houses that were built from the mid
1940s to the late 1960s that have basement suites that are noncompliant. The City estimates that there are approximately 10,000 to
12,000 non-compliant Secondary Suites.
SDAB-D-13-276
3
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
3. Ms. Mulrooney hand drew a floor plan for the Board to show the
configuration of the basement which is 800 square feet with two
bedrooms and one bathroom. The floor plan reviewed by the
Development Authority was the original, and not the proposed plan.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the deficiency of 53.3 square metres in the minimum required Site Area,
and the deficiency of 2 on-site parking spaces be permitted, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Appellant shall submit revised plans showing the dimension and
layout of the Secondary Suite, to the satisfaction of the Board, on or
before December 5, 2013.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development, a Secondary Suite, is a Discretionary Use
in the RF6 Medium Density Multiple Family Zone.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the General Purpose of
the RF6 Medium Density Multiple Family Zone, which is to provide
for medium density housing, where some units may not be at grade.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the principles contained
in Section 5.2.1 of the Municipal Development Plan (The Way We
Grow) which is to enhance established neighbourhoods by ensuring
the design of new development, infrastructure and community
facilities makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.
4. Based on the evidence submitted, the existing Dwelling was built with
high ceilings to accommodate the Secondary Suite in the Basement.
5. Based on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient parking north of
the proposed development on 110A Avenue and the site is close to two
LRT stations and a bus stop.
6. Based on the evidence submitted, the Site Area is characteristic of the
area and the proposed development meets the total Site Coverage
requirements of Section 170.4(3).
7. No letters were received in opposition to the proposed development
and no one appeared in opposition at the hearing.
SDAB-D-13-276
4
November 28, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION CONTINUED:
8. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the proposed
development will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
neighbourhood nor 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.
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.
SDAB-D-13-276
6.
5
November 28, 2013
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 Sustainable Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
Mr. N. Somerville, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
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
DATE: November 28, 2013
APPLICATION NO: 143329797-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-13-240
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated September 23, 2013, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Construct exterior alterations to a Single Detached House (concrete driveway extension)
on Lot 50, Block 5, Plan 0623310, located at 3803 – MacNeil Heath NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 16, 2013 and
November 13, 2013 The decision of the Board was as follows:
October 16, 2013 Hearing:
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-13-240 be tabled to November 13 or 14, 2013 due to the
non-attendance of the Appellant.”
November 13, 2013 Hearing:
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-13-240 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.
SDAB-D-13-240
2
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
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 exterior alterations to a Single
Detached House (concrete driveway extension). The subject site is zoned
RSL Residential Small Lot Zone. The development permit application
was refused due to an excess in the minimum allowed driveway Width,
and that the driveway does not lead directly from the roadway to the
required Garage or Parking Area. It is the opinion of the Development
Authority that the vehicular parking space in the Front Yard unduly
interferes with the amenities of the neighbourhood.
The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to
the proposed development.
The Board heard from Ms. Tandorost, the Appellant, who made the
following points:
1. She stated that the driveway was constructed in 2008.
2. She was not aware that a development permit was required to expand
the driveway.
3. She spoke to neighbouring property owners with regard to the existing
driveway extension and received no opposition.
In response to questions by the Board, Ms. Tandorost provided the
following information:
1. She confirmed that the house was built in 2008 and they are the first
owners of the house.
2. She stated that the driveway extension accommodate their family as
they walk out the front of the garage into the dwelling.
3. With regard to the 4.32 metre driveway extension being large, she
stated that, in her opinion, the size of the lot is large and allows for the
extended driveway.
4. She confirmed that when the house was built it did not include a
walkway from the front door to the roadway in front of the house.
5. She confirmed that the driveway extension is not used as a parking
area but only for walking purposes.
The Board heard from Ms. McBride, representing the Sustainable
Development Department, who made the following points:
SDAB-D-13-240
3
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
1. With regard to the Real Property Report/Site Plan, she stated that the
markings on the Plan illustrate the area of the extension and clarified
that the variance is for the highlighted area on the Site Plan.
2. She confirmed that she calculated the driveway extension based on 3.1
metres times the number of parking spaces in the garage and that there
was approximately 0.9 metres or 3 feet on the opposite side of the
driveway to the driveway extension.
3. She confirmed that the calculation would be different if the driveway
and garage were facing MacNeil Way.
4. She stated that the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw was amended in 2011 and
she was not certain what the Bylaw stated for driveway extensions
when the driveway was constructed in 2008.
5. She stated the current Bylaw does not allow for driveway extensions
beyond the garage.
6. She could not confirm typical sidewalk width requirements for the
City.
7. She was not certain between the distinction between a walkway and a
driveway.
8. Four vehicles could be parked on the current configuration but nothing
in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw distinguishes between a driveway and
sidewalk.
9. She stated that Bylaw Enforcement has been to the site and has fined
the owners of the property due to repeat offences of parking on this
driveway extension.
In response to questions by the Board, Ms. McBride provided the
following information:
1. With regard to the reason for walkway access to the front door being
approximately 3 feet wide, she stated that she could not comment on
this as she was uncertain of typical walkway widths.
2. With regard to whether or not the driveway extension would have been
approved when the house was first built she stated that she was not
certain.
The Board brought Section 54.1 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw to her
attention with regard to Driveway Widths.
The Board stated that the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw does not stipulate the
maximum walkway width and there appears to be no legislative basis to
restrict either the width or the materials of which walkways may be
constructed.
SDAB-D-13-240
4
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
In rebuttal, Ms. Tandorost provided the following information:
1. She reiterated that she was unaware that a development permit was
required for the driveway.
2. She stated that her husband extended the driveway.
3. She stated that they spoke to neighbouring property owners within the
60 metre notification radius and received signatures from 18
neighbouring property owners in support of the proposed
development, marked Exhibit A.
4. She stated that she is amenable to putting planters in the area of the
extended driveway if a condition was imposed by the Board.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. the extended driveway area on the south side of the garage shall not be
used to park vehicles;
2. the Appellant shall establish the landscaped separation space between
the driveway and the walkway leading from the roadway to the front
door of the residence as referenced in Section 54.1(4) of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw; and
3. landscaping may be in the form of planters placed on the concrete
surface or holes drilled in the concrete in order to allow the planting of
trees or shrubs.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development is Accessory to a Permitted Use in the RSL
Residential Small Lot Zone.
2. The development under appeal was built prior to the adoption of
Section 54.1(4) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
3. The south concrete extension is a walkway from MacNeil Heath to the
front door of Principal Building, and the north concrete extension is a
walkway from MacNeil Heath to the Side Yard.
SDAB-D-13-240
5
November 28, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION CONTINUED:
4. The Edmonton Zoning Bylaw is specific about the maximum width of
a driveway, but specifically excludes walkways, and the development
under appeal can be defined as a walkway.
5. Imposing the condition will ensure the proposed extension will be used
as a walkway.
6. Based on the evidence submitted, extensions to concrete driveways are
characteristic of the area.
7. The Appellant submitted signatures of support from 18 property
owners in the area.
8. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the proposed
development will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
neighbourhood nor 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.
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.
SDAB-D-13-240
6.
6
November 28, 2013
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 Sustainable Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
Mr. N. Somerville, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
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
DATE: November 28, 2013
APPLICATION NO: 138235042-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-13-236
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated September 11, 2013, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Construct a Semi-detached House with front attached Garage, front veranda, fireplace (northern
portions of Lots 1 & 2).
on Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, Plan 2064S, located at 7716 – 112 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 9, 2013 and
November 13, 2013. The decision of the Board was as follows:
October 9, 2013 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 Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
to refuse an application to construct a Semi-detached House with front
attached Garage, front veranda, fireplace (northern portions of Lots 1 &
2). The subject site is zoned RF3 Small Scale Infill Development Zone
and is within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The development
permit application was refused due to a deficiency in the minimum Site
Area, a deficiency in the minimum Site Depth, an excess in the maximum
allowable total Site Coverage, a deficiency in the minimum required Rear
SDAB-D-13-236
2
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
Setback, that being 40 percent of the Site Depth, each Dwelling is not
individually defined through architectural features, and there is vehicular
access from the Flanking public roadway when an Abutting Lane exists
and there is a Treed Landscaped Boulevard present along the roadway
adjacent to the property line.
The Board notes that the Appellants submitted a detailed written
submission prior to the hearing, a copy of which is on file. The
submission contains a review of the reasons for refusal, photographs of
similar developments in the area and a copy of the community
consultation.
The Board also notes that a letter of opposition was received from an
adjacent property owner on October 8, 2013, a copy of which is on file.
The letter addressed concerns regarding the variances required for the
proposed development.
The Board heard from Mr. Kiansha Dinahmadi and Mr. Omid Ghoreishi,
representing the Appellant, Kamp Homes & Contracting Inc. They used a
PowerPoint presentation to provide the following information:
1. Every attempt has been made to ensure that the proposed development
is sensitive to the requirements of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay
and the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
2. The existing house on the subject site was built in the 1940s.
3. This neighbourhood is comprised of high density residential properties
located in close proximity to public schools, commercial development,
the LRT, and the University of Alberta.
4. This lot is unique in size and shape.
5. The subject lot is only 20.15 metres deep while most of the lots in this
neighbourhood are 40 metres deep.
6. It was their opinion that the proposal will provide sustainable
development in a mature neighbourhood while respecting the
characteristics and attributes of the existing streetscape.
7. There are many other Semi-detached Houses in this area.
8. It was their opinion that the proposed development will improve the
aesthetics of the neighbourhood.
9. Community consultation was undertaken and many of the residents
that they contacted have provided support for the proposed
development because it will increase property values in the
neighbourhood.
SDAB-D-13-236
3
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
10. Any type of development on the subject lot will require variances
because of the dimensions of the lot.
11. The size of the lot cannot be changed which makes development
difficult.
12. It was their opinion that the variances in the minimum required Site
Area and Site Depth are reasonable given that the lot dimensions are
out of their control. If these variances are not granted, no development
would be possible on this lot.
13. A variance in the minimum Rear Setback of 6.54 metres is required to
provide a ramp to the proposed basement garages with a proper slope.
In order to accomplish this, the front setback had to be increased to
ensure the ramp has a slope of less than 18 percent.
14. This solution was inspired by an existing multi-family development
with an underground garage with an 18 percent sloped driveway and a
similar rear setback.
15. In order to ameliorate the impact of this variance, a green space will be
created along the property line.
16. The slope of the proposed driveway is currently 17 percent but could
be reduced to between 13 and 14 percent by raising the floor and
ceiling and the garage by 1 foot, which will not impact the overall
height of the development.
17. The rooflines of the two dwelling units can be changed so that each
dwelling has a distinct identity in order to comply with Section
140.4(18) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw. They are willing to make
further revisions to the other architectural features including the front
porch.
18. It was their opinion that the variance required to accommodate
vehicular access from the front or flanking public roadway is
reasonable because there are existing residences with vehicular access
from 112 Street in close proximity to the subject site. The proposed
underground garage will also provide the property owner with more
usable space.
19. The concerns of Transportation Services have been addressed by
reducing the slope of the proposed driveway to 17 percent.
20. The health of the existing boulevard tree will be protected by
maintaining a 2.8 metre clearance between the proposed vehicle access
and the tree.
21. There are five residences located on 112 Street between 77 Avenue
and 78 Avenue, three of which have front drive access to the treed
boulevard.
22. The Floor Area of the upper half Storey has been made to comply by
reducing the storage space on both sides.
SDAB-D-13-236
4
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
23. The maximum allowable Height has been reduced to 8.56 metres to
comply with the maximum allowable height of 8.6 metres.
24. It was their opinion that the proposed development will provide
affordable infill housing on a lot that will require variances to
accommodate any type of development.
Mr. Kiansha Dinahmadi and Mr. Omid Ghoreishi provided the following
responses to questions:
1. If the garage floor is raised to reduce the slope of the proposed
driveway, the main entrance will remain at 4 feet above grade. Inside
there will be two steps up to the main floor with 8 foot ceilings over
the garage area. The remainder of the first floor level will be as
outlined on the original plans with 9 foot ceilings.
2. They are familiar with the Guidelines for residential infill in Mature
Neighbourhoods, specifically C2(5) which states that Semi Detached
Houses consist of two dwellings joined on one side by a party wall and
each unit has individual access to the street and do not exceed a
maximum Density of 33 units/hectare.
3. They acknowledged that the proposed development has a maximum
Density of 52 dwellings per hectare. However, there are numerous
other developments in this neighbourhood with a similar density.
4. This neighbourhood is comprised of mixed zoning, including RA7,
RF3 and commercial development.
5. They made several attempts to contact the Community League without
success.
6. They approached neighbours to discuss the proposed development and
provided a summary of their responses in their written submission.
7. Although the Plot Plan references Lot 3, Lot 3 does not exist. The site
is an extension of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
8. The slope of the existing driveway is 17 percent but can be reduced to
between 13 and 14 percent if the garage floor is raised.
9. In order to have a half Storey, the pony walls will need to be reduced
which will also reduce its size. This will require an adjustment to the
roof line which will reduce the overall height of the building.
10. Information could not be provided regarding the original subdivision
of this lot, but they assumed that it occurred prior to the construction
of the existing house.
11. They are prepared to consider revisions to design features and
finishing materials to comply with the Bylaw requirements.
SDAB-D-13-236
5
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
The Board then heard from Mr. Mark Polushin, an affected property
owner who appeared in opposition to the proposed development and
provided the following information:
1. Mr. Polushin clarified that the letter of opposition was submitted by
his sister who owns an adjacent lot west of the subject site.
2. Mr. Polushin indicated that neither he nor the President of the
Community League were contacted by the Appellant to discuss the
proposed development.
3. He owns the immediately adjacent lot west of the subject site but does
not live in the City and his sister informed him of the proposed
development.
4. If he had been informed he could have educated himself.
5. He asked if there was an obligation for the developer to inform him of
the proposed development.
At this point the Board Officer clarified that the subject site is located in
the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay and consultation is required with
property owners who reside within a 60 metre radius of the subject site.
6. Mr. Polushin reiterated that he was not contacted by the developer and
is uncertain about the impact of the proposed development on drainage
and access for emergency vehicles because the proposed development
will encroach further into the lane.
7. He questioned whether or not he should be seeking legal advice.
8. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Polushin stated that he
was not seeking an adjournment but wanted clarification on the
requirement for individuals to be informed so that they could protect
themselves or seek legal counsel.
The Presiding Officer clarified that Notice of the Refusal and the date and
time of the appeal hearing was sent to property owners within a 60 metre
radius of the subject site.
9. Mr. Polushin acknowledged that he did receive the Notice of the
Appeal hearing on September 23, 2013. However, he never received
any information from the developer.
10. The summary of the community consultation contained in the written
submission of the Respondent was reviewed and it was noted by the
Appellants that Mr. Polushin lived out of town and could not be
contacted.
SDAB-D-13-236
6
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
11. Mr. Polushin reiterated his concern that the developer did not contact
him.
Mr. Polushin provided the following responses to questions:
1. Mr. Polushin indicated that he visited the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board office on Friday, October 4, 2013. The
staff provided him with the Respondent’s telephone number but he did
not contact them and was shown a photograph of the proposed
development.
2. He did not discuss the proposed plans because his time was limited
and his parking meter was about to expire.
3. He questioned the impact of the proposed development on the value of
his property.
4. He is happy that the existing two small buildings on the subject site
will be replaced by a new development.
Mr. Polushin advised the Board that he was requesting an adjournment but
did not have time to wait for a decision.
Mr. Kiansha Dinahmadi and Mr. Omid Ghoreishi provided the following
information in response to the request for an adjournment:
1. They went to Mr. Polushin’s property and spoke to the tenants. They
asked the tenants for the owner’s telephone number but they refused to
provide it to them. Instead they took their telephone number to
forward to the property owner.
2. They spoke to Mr. Polushin’s sister in person.
3. If an adjournment is granted it will delay their development if it is
ultimately approved. They are prepared to proceed with demolition
upon receipt of the written decision of the Board and plan to use the
time between the verbal decision and the written decision to finalize
their development.
DECISION:
that SDAB-D-13-236 be TABLED to November 13, 2013 in order to
provide additional time for the Appellant to provide revised plans to the
satisfaction of the Board on or before November 6, 2013, to include the
following:
SDAB-D-13-236
7
November 28, 2013
DECISION CONTINUED:
1. The Garage floor be raised 12 inches (30.48 centimetres) to reduce the
slope of the Driveway to 14 percent;
2. Revise the Height of the Loft Floor Plan to a Half Storey, as defined
by Section 6.1(47) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw;
3. Revised plans to illustrate the creation of more delineation between the
proposed two Dwellings to comply with Section 140.4(18) of the
Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The Board finds that the Appellant is prepared to address the
challenges and hardships imposed by the subject site and that it is
reasonable to ask the Appellant to submit revised plans to the
satisfaction of the Board.
November 13, 2013 Hearing:
MOTION:
“that SDAB-D-13-236 be raised from the table”
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
The Board heard from Mr. K. Dinahmadi, resenting the Appellant, Kamp
Homes & Contracting Inc., who made the following points:
1. He provided the Board with a PowerPoint and outlined his
presentation, marked Exhibit A.
2. He stated that the first revision was to raise the garage floor by 12
inches to make the driveway slope under 14 percent. By doing this,
the driveway slope becomes 13.7 percent.
3. They revised the side walls on the top floor making the proposed
development a 2.5 storey building; therefore, the Height is under the
0.66 metre requirement making this a half storey.
4. They included greater delineation between each side of the building on
the roof style, windows, entrance door, garage door, cantilevers over
the windows, and in the building material.
SDAB-D-13-236
8
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
5. The Site Coverage has been reduced to 41.9 percent and the loft floor
area has been reduced to less than 50 percent than the Storey beneath
it.
6. They addressed the letter received from the McKernan District
Community League in opposition to the proposed development which
stated that their company did not have a good understanding of the
area. The Appellant stated they had done a great deal of work within
the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay and have worked in the area for
over four years.
7. The letter from the Community League indicated opposition due to the
number of variances required. In their opinion, the Community
League’s concern is with regard to the subdivision of the subject Lot.
8. They attempted to comply with the regulations of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw regulations when making revisions.
9. In their opinion, the Community League had concerns with regard to
the construction phase of the project but the clearance in front of the
building is large enough for them to store their equipment on the land.
10. He stated that the two proposed dwellings will have the same square
footage as a building with a Secondary Suite. In their opinion, the
proposed development will be better suited to provided for affordable
housing.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Dinahmadi provided the
following information:
1. They were informed that it was their obligation to consult with the
Community League in their area and he stated that they attempted to
contact the Community League; however, the Community League
building is under construction and they were not able to contact
anyone.
2. They spoke to a few neighbours who had a few concerns, one being
the over development of the Site, and Mr. Polushin who was in
opposition of the proposed development and was in attendance at the
first hearing.
3. They stated that they spoke to Mr. Polushin after the first hearing, and
he was concerned about drainage. They assured Mr. Polushin that the
draining certificates will ensure that drainage will take place entirely
on the subject Site.
SDAB-D-13-236
9
November 28, 2013
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
4. With regard to the Site Coverage, he stated that they reduced the deck
on the house by one foot and the total Site Coverage will be less than
the 42 percent allowable under Section 140.4(10).
5. With regard to the letter received from the Community League, he
stated that their concern was the overdevelopment of the Site and that
the City would like to increase density in this area; therefore, a
development such as this will add densification in a productive way.
6. He stated that any development on the subject Site will require
variances.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the requirement of Section 814.3(10)(a) that there shall be no vehicular
access from the Flanking public roadway where an abutting Lane exists
and there is a Treed Landscaped Boulevard is present along the roadway
adjacent to the property line be waived, and the deficiency of 61.52 square
metres in the minimum required Site Area, the deficiency of 9.85 metres
in the minimum required Site Depth, and the deficiency of 6.54 metres in
the minimum required Rear Setback, that being 40 percent of the Site
Depth be permitted, subject to the following conditions:
1. this approval is based on the revised plans submitted and reviewed by
the Board on November 13, 2013;
2. the height of the principal building shall not exceed 8.6 metres nor 2
1/2 Storeys as per the Height definition of Section 814.3(13) of the
Edmonton Zoning Bylaw 12800;
3. the area hard surfaced for a Driveway, not including the area used for a
walkway, shall comply with Section 54.6 of the Zoning Bylaw 12800;
4. except for the hard surfacing of Driveways and/or Parking Areas
approved on the site plan for this application, the remainder of the site
shall be landscaped in accordance with the regulations set out in
Section 55 of the Zoning Bylaw 12800;
5. any future deck development greater than 0.6 metres (2 feet) in Height
will require development and building permit approvals;
6. any future deck enclosure or cover requires a separate development
and building permit approval;
7. a minimum of 2.3 metres of clearance is required between any
proposed accesses and the tree (Enclosure II);
SDAB-D-13-236
10
November 28, 2013
DECISION CONTINUED:
8. there may be utilities within road right-of-way not specified that must
be considered during construction. The owner/applicant is responsible
for the location of all underground and above ground utilities and
maintaining required clearances as specified by the utility
companies. Alberta One-Call (1-800-242-3447) and Shaw Cable (1866-344-7429; www.digshaw.ca) should be contacted at least two
weeks prior to the work beginning to have utilities located. Any costs
associated with relocations and/or removals shall be at the expense of
the owner/applicant;
9. any sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring as a result of
construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of
Transportation Services, as per Section 15.5(f) of the Zoning Bylaw.
The sidewalks and boulevard will be inspected by Transportation
Services prior to construction, and again once construction is
complete. All expenses incurred for repair are to be borne by the
owner;
10. any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-way
requires an OSCAM permit. The owner must call Transportation
Operations at 780-442-6458 to arrange for the permit.
Note: Lot grades must match the Engineered approved lot grading plans
for the area. Contact Drainage Services at 780-496-5500 for lot
grading inspection inquiries.
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).
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development, a Semi-detached House, is Permitted Use
in the RF3 Small Scale Infill Development Zone.
2. Based on the evidence submitted, a variance in the required Site Area
and Site Depth will be required for any development on the subject
Site.
SDAB-D-13-236
11
November 28, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION CONTINUED:
3. The Appellant has eliminated the excess in Site Coverage, which has
increased the Front Setback of the development from 112 Street.
4. Based on the evidence submitted, the Appellant has addressed the
requirement to individually define the two Dwellings in the Semidetached House development.
5. Based on the evidence submitted, the proposed development meets the
maximum allowable Floor Area of the upper Half Storey.
6. Based on the evidence submitted, the proposed development is under
the maximum allowable Height and does not exceed two and a half
Storeys.
7. The 40 percent rear setback requirement in Section 814.3(5) refers to
typical lots in mature residential neighbourhoods. The subject site is
very different in configuration, but does allow 58 percent of the lot
area for amenity space.
8. While the Board acknowledges the concerns raised by the Community
League, the Board finds that the variances required are reduced and
variances will be required with any form of development on the
subject Site.
9. The Board finds that the proposed development is consistent with:
a. the RF3 Small Scale Infill Development Zone;
b. the General Purpose of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay that
states that the the purpose of this Overlay is to ensure that new low
density development in Edmonton’s mature residential
neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development,
maintains the traditional character and pedestrian-friendly design
of the streetscape, ensures privacy and sunlight penetration on
adjacent properties and provides opportunity for discussion
between applicants and neighbouring affected parties when a
development proposes to vary the Overlay regulations; and
c. Section 5.2.1 of the Municipal Development Plan, The Way We
Grow, which is to enhance established neighbourhoods by
ensuring the design of new development, infrastructure and
community facilities makes a positive contribution to the
neighbour.
10. Imposing the condition regarding the minimum clearance between the
proposed accesses and the existing tree will protect its health.
11. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the proposed
development will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
neighbourhood nor materially interfere with or affect the use,
enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.
SDAB-D-13-236
12
November 28, 2013
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.
SDAB-D-13-236
6.
13
November 28, 2013
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 Sustainable Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
Mr. N. Somerville, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.