OLDS — The Regional Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (RSDAB) has ruled against the Town of Olds in a condo development appeal.
In a decision signed Feb. 17 and released Feb. 19, the board revoked the development permit the Town of Olds granted for a 38-unit condo building at 6108 53rd St. in Olds, known as Westview Apartments.
Two existing buildings on the site were initially built as apartments in 1977 but were converted to condos in 2007. A developer has proposed constructing a third one between them.
The appeal was launched on behalf of the condominium board of directors by Sunreal Condominium Management which looks after those facilities.
The board held a hearing on the matter Feb. 5 in the Town of Olds council chambers.
The primary issue was the fact that the municipality had approved a proposal by the developer for a 38-unit condominium in the open space even though, under the bylaw, the design was short four parking spaces.
The town granted a variance for those “missing” parking spaces, as the number fell within the planning department’s ability to grant variances of up to 15 per cent (it came in at eight per cent).
In his presentation to the RSDAB, Kyle Sloan, a development officer with the Town of Olds, said, while the appellant listed several concerns, the only matter to be dealt with is the variance.
He said the proposed 38-unit building “complied with all regulations of the town’s land use bylaw, except for one, and that is the minimum parking requirement.”
Sloan said the necessary stalls will be provided by a combination of underground parking and above-ground parking on the lot that would eventually be shared by all three buildings.
He said all other matters raised are outside the town’s land use bylaw.
“The board feels that the variance is not warranted,” a six-page decision on the matter said.
“While the development authority has the power to grant variances, and its decision is legally correct, the board believes such a variance is not warranted in this case.
“lt is the opinion of the board that granting this variance will lead to excessive congestion on the site and that the granting of this variance would negatively impact the use and enjoyment of the site by the other residents.”
The condo board listed several concerns about the project which spurred it to file its appeal of the issuance of the development permit. They included:
• under the current condominium corporation bylaws, the developer is required to work with the board of directors and obtain approval for any development, but had not done so;
• inadequate parking allocation;
• the proposed development removes five existing parking spaces to create space for additional parking;
• the plan also suggests adding parallel parking along the entrances, which would require widening the roadway. The condo board said that would be difficult to manage, because in its view, enforcement would be required to ensure emergency access remains unobstructed;
• the absence of details of the developer’s plan to relocate underground utility lines essential to the existing building 200, currently existing under unit 2;
• the absence of details of plans for construction access to unit 2;
• unauthorized relocation or removal of corporation property, including trees and a storage shed;
• that the condominium corporation has not agreed to a proposed reduction in the ratio of landscaped land to the overall property.
In its decision, the board did not address those concerns.
“The requirements outlined in the condo board’s bylaws are outside the scope of the board’s review,” the decision said. “These are separate considerations and were not addressed by this board.”
The RSDAB noted that its decision can be appealed to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
Brent Williams, the town’s chief administrative officer, was asked if the municipality plans to do so.
“No, we won’t appeal this decision,” he wrote.
In an email, Sunreal associate commercial property manager and condominium manager Mandy Dunbar said she had not yet heard from all of the condo board members, "but so far, everyone is pleased with the SDAB’s decision to revoke the development permit."
