Focus On

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - Development permits - Relationship to bylaws - Zoning - Zoning regulations - Land use - Types - Residential - Commercial activity in residential zone

Wednesday, May 31, 2017 @ 8:10 AM  

Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Appeal by the City from a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board overturning the City’s decision and granting Grewal, a City resident, a permit to operate a trucking business on her property as a home based business. Grewal and her family lived in a house located on a five acre parcel of land in the City in a quasi-rural area zoned AG Agricultural. Grewal and her husband operated a family-owned trucking business from the property, which consisted of administrative activities, trucking and storage of eight semi-trailer trucks outside the property when they were not in use. After the City learned the business was operating without a development permit, Grewal applied for a permit to operate the trucking business as Major Home Based Business (MHBB), which was a discretionary use in the AG Agricultural zone. The development authority denied the application on the basis that the trucking business was a General Industrial Use rather than a MHBB. Grewal appealed. The Board reversed the decision of the development authority and found that the business was a MHBB. The City appealed the Board’s decision on the grounds that the Board incorrectly interpreted the bylaw and erred in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the impact an applicant’s home based business would have on access roads and others who used the roads.

HELD: Appeal allowed. The Board erred in its interpretation of the MHBB use class. Essentially, the entire operation of the trucking business occurred outside, not within an approved dwelling or accessory building as required by the definition of the MHBB use class. The Board further erred by considering whether the business use was secondary to the residential use of the site, rather than whether the business use of the building would be secondary to its residential use. Furthermore, the Board erred in concluding it had no jurisdiction to consider the impact Grewal’s business would have on the use of the street. Accordingly, the development authority's decision denying the permit was reinstated.

Edmonton (City) v Edmonton (City) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, [2017] A.J. No. 453, Alberta Court of Appeal, J.D.B. McDonald, T.W. Wakeling and S.J. Greckol JJ.A., May 4, 2017. Digest No. TLD-May292017006