A public hearing on a proposed bylaw that would allow a city development officer discretion in classifying land uses that don’t fit with already existing definitions and sets out requirements to allow accessory buildings in residential side yards has been adjourned until March 17.
Monday night was the second time Bylaw 31/2013 has been adjourned. It was previously adjourned in September for revisions that took out a discussion of signage requirements.
“In going through this, I had some pause of my own,” said Coun. Cam MacKay, who put forward the motion for the adjournment. “The number one thing I want to do is make sure I’m protecting the rights of the public.”
The bylaw proposes allowing development officers discretion in land use definitions. Jim Killoh, manager of the city’s development branch told council there are two components to the amendment – the addition of a land use interpretation clause, which would address “unique” land use issues like a micro brewery, food bank or air quality monitoring station that don’t fit within the city’s defined land uses.
The second component lays out requirements to allow accessory buildings in side yards. Currently accessory buildings for residential properties are only allowed in rear yards, though side yard buildings can be approved by taking the request to the subdivision and development appeal board (SDAB).
SDAB did send in a letter noting concerns over the discretion being given to the development officer and suggesting wording be added to allow affected and adjacent property owners to appeal the decision.
SDAB’s letter also noted the provisions to allow accessory buildings like sheds in side yards actually would make it hard to approve many due to the setback requirements. The letter said many applications to have a shed in a side yard are granted already.
Mayor Nolan Crouse wanted to know why SDAB’s proposals weren’t followed.
“It came across to me as being a pretty good compromise,” Crouse said. Killoh said his department had just received the letter last week and it might be appropriate to adjourn the public hearing if council wanted to incorporate SDAB’s suggestions.
MacKay was concerned about the discretion being allowed the development officer and Couns. Tim Osborne and Sheena Hughes questioned the setback requirements.
David Hales – general manager of planning and engineering in St. Albert – said the purpose of the amendments was to streamline the application process so as to cut down on appeals instead of imposing more rules and regulations. “I think we may have lost the intent of the amendments,” Hales said.
Crouse shared what he wrote down while reading the bylaw report. “I think we’re taking the voice out of council and the residents,” he said.
Council unanimously approved a motion to adjourn the public hearing until March.
