Dear Editor,
In regard to the letter from Brooke Carter to the mayor dated July 28, 2014, and published in your Aug. 7 edition, I feel a response is warranted.
Mr. Carter made some statements that appear to be factual, but are in fact incorrect, and need clarification.
Firstly, since 2008, the Development Officer had the given authority to consider and decide upon secondary suite and garage suite applications when they complied with all aspects of the Land Use Bylaw provisions. In October 2013, the authority for decisions on garage suites was removed from the Development Officer and given to the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC), by way of a Land Use Bylaw amendment.
During this time, authority for decisions on secondary suites was inadvertently removed, by error. In an attempt to correct this oversight, and to bring decision authority on secondary suites back to the Development Officer, a report went to council on May 26, and subsequently on June 23, 2014. I will note that in the previous years, in which the Development Officer had decision authority, no issues or objections to this process, neither from town residents, administration, nor from council, were recorded.
Secondly, Mr. Carter asserts that if decision authority on secondary suite proposals were given back to the Development Officer, we would no longer give notice to neighbours, or offer opportunities for community input on the subject. This is incorrect.
Secondary suites are a discretionary use, and on each discretionary use application the Development Authority notifies all landowners within a 50m radius, and invites comments. All responses are taken into consideration when a decision is made. Decisions are not automatic nor are they whimsical; all relevant provisions of the Land Use Bylaw must be met before approval can be granted.
Thirdly, the letter mentions that a member of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) is the husband of the town’s CAO and that this is an “outrageous conflict of interest.” The Municipal Government Act (MGA), the legislative framework in which all municipalities and municipal entities across the Province of Alberta operate, provides clear guidelines on what constitutes a conflict of interest. These guidelines exist to ensure that municipal business is conducted with integrity and in a professional manner.
For example, the MGA stipulates that it is imperative there not be, nor appear to be, any conflict between the private interests of elected officials and appointed board members and their duty to the public. The fact that a staff family member is on the SDAB does not present any conflict of interest whatsoever in the context of the above regulations.
Fourthly, Mr. Carter’s letter states that at the SDAB, a resident pointed out that the developer had “no intention of residing in either of the two rental family units.” This statement appears to suggest that if the subject of the property is not intended to be owner-occupied, the application should be treated less favourably. Let me be clear — the Land Use Bylaw carries no stipulation whatsoever on who occupies a proposed secondary suite.
Finally, concern was expressed in the letter that the SDAB voted to overturn the MPC decision and that “in fact, with this new loophole created by our mayor, every residential area is now at risk of high density development with no reasonable avenue of appeal.” In reality, no loophole exists. Every application for a secondary suite is treated on its own merits — both by MPC, and where applicable, at the SDAB.
The decisions made at these two Boards do not set precedence on how similar future applications are dealt with. Although decisions made by the SDAB are final (except on a point of law or jurisdiction), MPC decisions can be appealed. Every residential area in town is certainly at no risk of high density development as a result of this SDAB decision.
Furthermore, the mayor is just one of the members of the SDAB. The decision in question was a joint one of the board collectively, where each member has the right to vote as they see fit.
Understandably, the current review of the secondary suite regulations is arousing considerable debate. Council has made it clear that they want public input to be an integral part of the review process.
Residents who wish to participate in the review are welcome to attend appropriate council meetings. The public is also welcome to attend a future public hearing, which is a necessary component of any bylaw amendment that proposes to change the way secondary suites are processed by the town.
Sincerely,
Ken Kalirai
Director of Planning and Development
Town of Sylvan Lake