SDAB-D-12-217
Application No. 99312099-004
An appeal by Ace & Irene Cetinski to remove all large Recreational Vehicles,
campers, motor homes, trailers and automobiles from this property location. The
only vehicles that may remain stored at this site are those personal vehicles that are
registered to and belong to the property owners of this property location. This
order is to be complied with on or before August 6, 2012, on Lot 8, Plan 138KS,
located at 6520 – 8 Street NW, was TABLED TO OCTOBER 3 OR 4, 2012.
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: September 20, 2012
APPLICATION NO: 126520544-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-12-218
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated August 9, 2012, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Erect a Privacy Screen with a Height of 1.83 metres (6 feet) that is 13.55 metres in length on the
West property line (94 Avenue), 6.24 metres in length on the south property line and an internal
portion 6.19 metres in length
on Lot 29, Block 40, Plan 7521610, located at 17915 – 94 Avenue, was heard by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on September 5, 2012. 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 approve, subject to conditions, and with a variance in the maximum
allowable Height, an application to erect a 1.83 metres (6 feet) Privacy
Screen, 13.55 metres in length on the West property line (94 Avenue),
6.24 metres in length on the South property line and an internal portion
6.19 metres in length, located at 17915 – 94 Avenue. The subject site is
zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone. The appeal was filed by an
adjacent property owner based on concerns regarding the negative impact
SDAB-D-12-218
2
September 20, 2012
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
that the variance granted in the maximum allowable Height of the Fence
will have on neighbouring property owners.
The Board notes that one letter was received in support of the proposed
development and one letter was received in opposition to the proposed
development.
The Board heard from Mr. and Mrs. Berkenbosch, the Appellants, who
made the following points:
1. They provided the Board with a letter from the neighbouring property
owner south of the subject site, in opposition to the proposed
development, marked Exhibit A.
2. They are concerned with the size and height of the proposed fence
which will create sight line hazards for vehicles exiting the cul-de-sac
to enter 94 Avenue, a relatively busy road.
3. Impeded sight lines are more hazardous in the winter when it is
difficult to come to a full stop for fear of getting stuck in the snow.
4. They provided the Board with a Realtor’s report indicating that the
proposed fence will have a negative impact on their property value.
5. They did not speak to the Respondent regarding the proposed fence.
6. In their opinion, a four-foot fence developed on the property would be
sufficient which would maintain green space in the cul-de-sac and not
affect sight lines.
7. The letter from the neighbour south of the subject site stated that sight
lines are already impacted with the existing fence on the south side of
the subject site.
The Board then heard from Mr. and Mrs. Miller, the Respondents, who
made the following points:
1. They provide the Board with a written submission, marked Exhibit B,
outlining their reasons for wanting the proposed fence. This exhibit
included, among other documents, the Respondent’s speaking notes,
photographs and opinions from Realtors that the proposed fence will
have a positive impact on neighbouring property values.
2. They intend to start a family in the near future and the proposed fence
will provide privacy and safety for their family.
3. As this is a corner lot, the fence will be constructed in what they see as
their Side Yard, which is the only area on the property that can provide
this amenity space.
SDAB-D-12-218
3
September 20, 2012
SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:
4. Their Side Yard is the Front Yard view for the neighbours in the culde-sac.
5. Included in their submission is a petition with seven signatures from
neighbouring property owners within the 60 metre notification radius
in support of the proposed development.
6. They provided photographs of other homes on corner lots in their
neighbourhood that have a fence similar to the fence they are
proposing.
7. They provided a photograph showing the exact location for the
proposed fence.
8. The proposed fence will be six feet high and constructed of wood that
has been given to them by one of their neighbours.
9. The proposed fence will be of the same height as the existing fence
along the perimeter on the property south of the subject site.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. and Mrs. Miller provided the
following:
1. Their lot has a slope from the house down to the property line, which
will need to be considered when constructing the fence so it will not
exceed six feet high.
2. They reiterated their desire to have a six-foot fence for privacy and
safety for them.
3. The proposed fence will mitigate sight lines from neighbouring
properties when they are using the existing deck on the south side of
their home.
4. They attempted to discuss the proposed deck with their neighbours but
were not successful.
In rebuttal, Mr. and Mrs. Berkenbosch made the following points:
1. In their opinion, the Respondents did not attempt to contact neighbours
with regard to the proposed fence.
2. The proposed fence will negatively impact their property value and the
aesthetics of the neighbourhood.
3. They are concerned about the style of fence that will be built and the
condition of the existing fence on the subject site.
4. They would be amenable for a four foot fence to be constructed on the
property but do not support a six foot fence.
SDAB-D-12-218
4
September 20, 2012
DECISION:
that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY CONFIRMED.
The Development Authority’s decision contains the following variance:
1. Relaxation of the maximum allowable height of a fence from 1.2
metres to 1.83 metres.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1. The proposed development is Accessory to a Permitted Use in the RF1
Single Detached Residential Zone.
2. The proposed fence is an extension of the existing fence on the south
side of the property.
3. The Height of the fence will provide privacy and safety for the
Respondents.
4. The Board recognizes that corner lots are particularly exposed
therefore requiring a greater need for privacy space to be created. The
height of the fence will ensure privacy not only for the Respondents
but also for their adjacent neighbours.
5. The Board acknowledges the Appellants’ concern with regard to the
impact on sight lines; however, the Board is not convinced that, when
viewed from a vehicle, a six-foot fence would obstruct sight lines any
more than a four-foot fence.
6. Based on the evidence provided, the Real Property Report shows that
the setback from the west property line to the sidewalk leaves adequate
site line for traffic safety.
7. Given that the fence does not extend beyond the front of the residence,
the Board does not accept that sight lines on entering 94 Avenue will
be seriously impeded.
8. The Realtor report submitted by the Appellants does not provide
comparable sales information to support this opinion.
9. The most affected neighbor south of the subject site signed the petition
in support of the proposed development.
10. Based on the above, it is the opinion of the Board, that the proposed
development would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
neighbourhood nor materially interfere with or affect the use,
enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”
SDAB-D-12-218
5
September 20, 2012
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
3.
A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
4.
Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.
5.
This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or
jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development
Permit.
6.
When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
Mr. N. Somerville, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
SDAB-D-12-219
Application No. 126415117-001
An appeal by Patricia Golec VS Saba Alam to change the Use from a Professional,
Financial, and Office Support Service to a Child Care Service (65 children) and to
construct interior alterations on Lot 23A, Block 58, Plan 9221515 and Lot 27,
Block 58, Plan I, located at 9928 / 9938 – 81 Avenue NW, was TABLED TO
SEPTEMBER 27, 2012.