Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013)

[240glt]

^ Incorrect. She's told a half-truth, and omitted very important and relevant aspects of the bylaw

So maybe she didn't outright lie. But she didn't tell the truth. And that's just as bad

[240glt]

So the SDAB refused to consider arguments of material interference and the intent of the RA7 redevelopment zone and allowed slumlord Carmen Pervez the permit to occupy a run down basement suite in a dilapidated house. This is a direct result of the lack of consistency and balance within the Sustainable development department and our cowardly leaders' focus on "housing first be-damned everything else"

Honestly I am embarrassed to be a resident and ratepayer in this city right now. Might be time to move to Sherwood Park
_____

[Coldrsx]

I should not go too far into that, nor was I involved, but a planning reason versus an enforcement reason is always an important thing to keep in mind.

[240glt]

^ the permit does not follow the intent of the RA7 redevelopment zoning that was put in place several years ago, not does it follow the intent of the Stadium ARP. It is absolutely a planning matter, the material interference issue should have been the icing on the cake

[Coldrsx]

I'd have to review further as I have not... but my comment stands for any hearing.

[240glt]

As you know I am intimately familiar with the area, zoning and the ARP. This was absolutely a planning matter

Don't even get me started on enforcement. The city is totally inept at that

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ the permit does not follow the intent of the RA7 redevelopment zoning that was put in place several years ago, not does it follow the intent of the Stadium ARP. It is absolutely a planning matter, the material interference issue should have been the icing on the cake

Development rights under zoning supersedes any policy / directive from an overlay or statutory plan. The Development Officer 'may' consider these when evaluating a development permit, but they are not bound by them.

[Black Star]

^He or she could and should be bound by common sense Imo this is a disaster for the neighborhood.

[rapid_business]

Sooooo.... anyone have a count on the amount of floors remaining to be poured for Ultima? Here is the view 5 minutes ago from my office:

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Development rights under zoning supersedes any policy / directive from an overlay or statutory plan. The Development Officer 'may' consider these when evaluating a development permit, but they are not bound by them.

i don't think that's entirely accurate. according to the bylaw:

"4. shall approve, without conditions, or with such conditions as required to ensure compliance, an application for development of a Permitted Use provided the development complies with the regulations of this Bylaw, or shall refuse an application for development of a Permitted Use if the development does not comply with the regulations of this Bylaw, unless he uses his discretion pursuant to Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of this Bylaw.

"5. may relax a regulation in a Zone or other Section of this Bylaw in accordance with the regulations contained in that Zone or Section, or may relax regulations in accordance with Sections 11.3 and 11.4, and in such case, the development applied for shall be a Discretionary Development;

"6. may refuse or approve, with or without conditions, with or without changes in the design of the development, or with or without the imposition of regulations more restrictive than those required by the specific Zone or General Development Regulations of this Bylaw, an application for development of a Discretionary Use, having regard to the regulations of this Bylaw and the provisions of any applicable Statutory Plan;"

your interpretation may be correct for outright uses falling under section 4 where it states "shall" but sections 5. and 6. clearly state otherwise for the exercising of discretionary rights and goes even further in the use of "may" and not "shall".

the clip/comments linked to seem to imply that approval must/shall be given for discretionary uses which is nonsensical - if that were the case there wouldn't be any discretionary uses, they would be all outright.

the bylaw goes on to state that where a variance - which includes discretionary uses - is being considered that:

"the proposed development would not, in his opinion:

• unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood; or
• materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties."

and while Coldrsx is prepared to consider this as a planning versus an enforcement issue and that his comment "stands for any hearing", while i respect the intentions of the department and the sdab and the individuals that make them up, i have to concur with 240glt that neither one of them is infallible and that outright errors in each of planning and regulation and law occur far more often than they should.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Sooooo.... anyone have a count on the amount of floors remaining to be poured for Ultima?

Last I counted they were pouring floor 30 of 31, so I believe it's just one more floor + roof and crown left.

[EdmTrekker]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Sooooo.... anyone have a count on the amount of floors remaining to be poured for Ultima? Here is the view 5 minutes ago from my office:

Where were you when you took the picture? What floor? I am guessing penthouse of Edmonton House ? It appears you "look down" from that vantage point...amazing view for sure.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i don't think that's entirely accurate. according to the bylaw:

"4. shall approve, without conditions, or with such conditions as required to ensure compliance, an application for development of a Permitted Use provided the development complies with the regulations of this Bylaw, or shall refuse an application for development of a Permitted Use if the development does not comply with the regulations of this Bylaw, unless he uses his discretion pursuant to Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of this Bylaw.

"5. may relax a regulation in a Zone or other Section of this Bylaw in accordance with the regulations contained in that Zone or Section, or may relax regulations in accordance with Sections 11.3 and 11.4, and in such case, the development applied for shall be a Discretionary Development;

"6. may refuse or approve, with or without conditions, with or without changes in the design of the development, or with or without the imposition of regulations more restrictive than those required by the specific Zone or General Development Regulations of this Bylaw, an application for development of a Discretionary Use, having regard to the regulations of this Bylaw and the provisions of any applicable Statutory Plan;"

your interpretation may be correct for outright uses falling under section 4 where it states "shall" but sections 5. and 6. clearly state otherwise for the exercising of discretionary rights and goes even further in the use of "may" and not "shall".

the clip/comments linked to seem to imply that approval must/shall be given for discretionary uses which is nonsensical - if that were the case there wouldn't be any discretionary uses, they would be all outright.

the bylaw goes on to state that where a variance - which includes discretionary uses - is being considered that:

"the proposed development would not, in his opinion:

• unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood; or
• materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties."

and while Coldrsx is prepared to consider this as a planning versus an enforcement issue and that his comment "stands for any hearing", while i respect the intentions of the department and the sdab and the individuals that make them up, i have to concur with 240glt that neither one of them is infallible and that outright errors in each of planning and regulation and law occur far more often than they should.

Thanks Ken, I 100% agree, and there are many precedents set that confirm this

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Black Star

^He or she could and should be bound by common sense Imo this is a disaster for the neighborhood.

Mayor is going to be speaking to the media at noon on this issue.

We shall see what he has to say

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Thanks Ken, I 100% agree, and there are many precedents set that confirm this

and the shame of it is that the precedents go both ways (i.e. permits not issued that should have been; permits issued that should not have been; sdab appeals that were not granted that should have been; and appeals granted that should not have been).

the results are inconsistent when the intention of zoning and planning bylaws is to provide consistency and certainty and the consequences are terribly time-consuming and expensive regardless of how they are measured.

[Makenosmallplans]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Jacobs on cities and how she was wrong?

Food for thought.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...out-cities.html?via=desktop&source=email

Great link. thanks for that. The author isn't wrong in some senses but it sounds like saying Isaac Newton got it all wrong because he failed to foresee the theory of relativity. Most if not all of her observations remain relevant at least within certain parameters. I think it is our execution more than economic externalities that have affected us differently than she/we expected that lead to the dissonance between JJ's world view and our current state.

i will also say that the author treats some of these forces - eg; gentrification benefiting the rich/childless vs the middle class family - as externalities over which we have no control. I disagree - many of these forces were created, primarily or at least accelerated, by our own policy decisions - notably, the emphasis on the automobile as a central piece of urban planning.

also interesting to see how difficult it can be to see a middle ground. i'm not sure JJ ever suggested that everyone should move to the core and suburbs should be converted to bucolic paradise . It's never all or none with human beings - i think we are talking about the balance of urban vs suburban development. Subtle changes to a ratio can make a big difference over time.

End pontification.

[Jasper and one o nin]

While her statements were not incorrect. There is more to it. Under the mga a discretionary use is permitted at the discretion of the DO. The zb does not set out the criteria, but case law precedent does. The property owner has the right to the use unless there is a valid planning reason that takes that right away. So the DO needs to consider the merits of the application and the context of the area. In other words, is the use reasonably compatible or appropriate. The DO must consider planning matters which include traffic, roadway hierarchy, proximity to sensitive uses, clustering of such potentially problematic uses etc.. given the existing and planned conditions. The DO cannot consider individuals associated with the use. So the DO can consider the arp. I don't know whether or not the ssarp has specific policy in this regard. nonetheless, the DO has broader powers when considering a discretionary use. Imo if there is a clustering of basement suites, there is a valid argument this is not reasonably compatible given the purpose of the underlying zone

[240glt]

She's done a — job and her whole department needs significant training and guidance. Sustainable development is likely the most incompetent department in the city, and if you were a planner you've shown you'd be incompetent too

[Jasper and one o nin]

Originally Posted by 240glt

She's done a — job and her whole department needs significant training and guidance. Sustainable development is likely the most incompetent department in the city, and if you were a planner you've shown you'd be incompetent too

What the — are you talking about? Why are you attacking me? I AM AGREEING WITH YOU - and trying to give some insight to a discussion! I'm guessing your bitter because you have tried to argue your points to the City, SD and the SDAB, but if your comments are any indication of how you form your arguments, it's now wonder you haven't got anywhere.

[240glt]

You're spewing the same diarrhea as your average development officer. You're damn right I am bitter, sick of dealing with incompetent city officials with no balls, if you don't like it do me a favour and — off

-