ROCKY VIEW COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD Board Order No.: 48-18 File No.: 04727012; PRDP20181660 Appeal by: Appeal Against: Owners: Darcie Parkhurst (Applicant, Owner) Development Authority of Rocky View County Darcie Parkhurst and Vern Parkhurst Hearing Date: 2018 August 8 Decision Date: 2018 August 23 Board Members: D. Kochan, Chair K. Hanson, Vice Chair I. Galbraith H. George W. Metzger DEVELOPMENT APPEAL DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal to the Rocky View County Subdivision and Development Appeal Board [the Board] from a decision dated June 25, 2018 of the Development Authority of Rocky View County to refuse a development permit for existing accessory buildings and the relaxation of the total number of accessory buildings at 114 Huggard Road [the Lands]. Upon notice being given, this appeal was heard on August 8, 2018 in the Council Chambers of Rocky View County, located at 911-32 Avenue NE, Calgary, Alberta. DECISION [2] The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Development Authority is revoked. A development permit shall be issued including the following conditions: 1) That the existing accessory buildings (four sheds and one tent) may remain on the subject land in accordance with the site plan submitted with the application. 2) That the total number of accessory buildings is relaxed from three to five. Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND [3] The Lands are located within SE-27-24-03-05, approximately 1.61 kms south of Highway 1 and 0.81 km (1/2 mile) east of Range Road 33. The legal description is Lot 11 Plan 7911293. The Lands are approximately 1.64 hectares (4.06 acres) in size. [4] The Lands are designated as Residential Two District. Only three accessory buildings are permitted on Residential Two District parcels (Rocky View County, Bylaw C-4841-97 [the Land Use Bylaw] s 50.10). [5] On May 162018, Darcie Parkhurst [the Appellant] applied fora development permit to bring the five existing accessory buildings into compliance with the Land Use Bylaw. [6] On June 25, 2018, the Development Authority refused the development permit application on the following ground: (1) The total number of accessory buildings exceeds the maximum permitted amount as defined in section 50.10 of the Land Use Bylaw. [7] On July 16, 2018, the Appellants appealed the Development Authority's decision. The Notice of Hearing was circulated to 47 adjacent landowners in accordance with the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 and Rocky View County Council Policy 0-327, Circulation and Notification Standards. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE [8] The Board heard verbal submissions from: (1) Johnson Kwan, Municipal Planner, for the Development Authority; (2) Lorraine Wesley-Riley, Manager Enforcement Services, for the Development Authority; (3) Darcie Parkhurst, the Appellant; and, (4) Gerald Wilson, owner of 100 Huggard Road, in opposition of the appeal. [9] The Board received a letter in support for the appeal containing signatures from: (1) Winifred Baker, owner of 190 Huggard Road; (2) Ryhllis Mailklem and Robert Mailkem, owners of 171 Huggard Road; (3) Maureen Stanley and Brian Stanley, owners of 135 Huggard Road; (4) Derek Coleman, owner of 126 Huggard Road; and, (5) Rose-Ann Normandeau, owner of 71 Huggard Road. Page 2 of 6
[10] The Board received letters in opposition to the appeal from: (1) Gerald Wilson, owner of 100 Huggard Road; (2) Barbara!meson, owner of 123 Huggard Road; (3) Ted Doan, owner of 90 Huggard Road; (4) Kevin MacDonald and Evelyn MacDonald, owners of 96 Huggard Road; and, (5) Paul Marsonette and Josephine Marsonette, owners of 225 Huggard Road. Development Authority's Submissions [11] Johnson Kwan, for the Development Authority, confirmed with the Board that: (1) Under the Residential Two District, three accessory buildings are permitted. (2) The Development Authority does not have the discretion to relax the total number of accessory buildings allowed. (3) The application is for a total of five accessory buildings. There are a total of eight accessory buildings on the Lands and three are to be removed. [12] Lorraine Wesley-Riley, for Enforcement Services, confirmed with the Board that: (1) Enforcement Services has no concerns with the accessory buildings if they are permitted and in good repair. (2) A bylaw enforcement officer could not speak to the installation of electrical cords. Appellant's Submission [13] The Appellant purchased the Lands 13-years ago and all four sheds existed at that time. [14] The accessory buildings are currently used for personal use. The Appellant stores vintage cars and other personal items. [15] There were three tents in the yard, which the Development Authority referred to as accessory buildings. The tenting material has been taken down. Gerald Wilson's Submissions [16] Wilson resides immediately to the east of the Lands. The area is a residential subdivision for residents and their pets. It is not suited for commercial operations. [17] Wilson does not want to see extra buildings on the Lands. The existing accessory buildings are in various stages of deterioration and the tenting material has fallen from the tent frames. Page 3 of 6
[18] Wilson raised the following other concerns: (1) There are noxious weeds on the Lands along Wilson's fence line. Wilson provided photos of the weeds in the Lands and his backyard. (2) There is a restrictive covenant on the Lands confining it to residential occupancy. The Appellant may have or be running a landscaping business, electrical business and/or dumping waste or soil on the Lands. The Appellant may also be housing the Appellant's staff members. Wilson provided photos taken from his property showing mounds and electrical spools on the Lands. (3) The Appellant has not abided enforcement orders and a court order to clean up the Lands. Wilson provided photos taken from his property of the Lands to demonstrate that the Lands are untidy. The photos show the accessory buildings, the Appellant's items stored on the Lands, a cable running over a shared fence, and the tent frames without tenting material. (4) A real estate agent advised Wilson that the condition of the Lands decreases Wilson's property value. Applicant's Rebuttal [19] The tents did not collapse. The tenting material was removed on instructions from a bylaw enforcement officer to help bring the Lands into compliance with the Land Use Bylaw. [20] All other accessory buildings on the Lands are used for storage and are at full capacity. [21] Regarding Wilson's other concerns: FINDINGS (1) The Applicant does not operate an electrical or construction business from the Lands. All the items on the Lands shown in Wilson's photographs are for personal use. None of the items on the property are for a business. (2) The electrical cord along their shared fence was inspected by a bylaw enforcement officer. (3) The Applicant doesn't mow parts of the pasture on the Lands and he added the spools for decoration. (4) The Applicant did not realize that keeping personal items out in the open was considered by others to be untidy. More of the items were hidden from view when the tents were up. [22] The accessory buildings are needed for the storage of the Appellant's personal property. The elimination of these buildings may result in more personal items being stored in the open. [23] Screening on the Lands, composed of mature trees and shrubbery, helps obstruct the view of the accessory buildings. Page 4 of 6
[24] The five accessory buildings appear to be in good repair. REASONS FOR DECISION [25] The Board's decision is limited to the appealed decision of the Development Authority regarding a development permit for accessory buildings. [26] An accessory building is a permitted and a discretionary use in the Residential Two District, in accordance with section 50 of the Land Use Bylaw. [27] Section 687(3)(d) of the Municipal Government Act provides that the 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, (i) the proposed development would not: (A) (B) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land, and (ii) the proposed development conforms to the use prescribed for that land or building in the land use bylaw. [28] The Board is satisfied that a relaxation of the number of accessory buildings from 3 to 5 does not unduly affect neighbouring lands. [29] The accessory buildings are necessary for storage and conform to the uses of Residential Two District. CONCLUSION [30] For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Development Authority is revoked. A development permit shall be issued subject to the abovenoted conditions. Dated at the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta this 23rd day of August, 2018. Don Kochan, Chair Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING AND CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD NO. ITEM 1. SDAB Report (18 pages) 2. Letter of Support (1) 3. Letters of Opposition (5) 4. Photographs from G. Wilson (10) Page 6 of 6