MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD  
In the Matter of Development Appeals filed by J. Agrios on behalf of C. Glassco and C. Link;  
P. and S. Stead; and P. Boyle (Appellants) under Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act being  
Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 (Act).  
Citation: Glassco v City of Calgary (Development Authority) (RE: Kernick), 2022 ABMGB 1  
Date: January 13, 2022  
File Numbers: D21/CALG/C-007 & D21/CALG/C-008  
Board Order Number: MGB 001/22  
Before:  
Members:  
F. Wesseling, Presiding Officer  
J. Jones, Member  
D. Piecowye, Member  
Case Manager:  
K. Lau  
This is an appeal to the Municipal Government Board (MGB) from a decision of City of Calgary  
Development Authority (DA) respecting an application for a development permit affecting 66 New  
Street SE. The hearing was held by videoconference on May 25 - 27, 2021 after notifying interested  
parties. Further submissions were accepted until August 9, 2021.  
On June 2, 2021 the Municipal Government Board (MGB) changed to the Land and Property  
Rights Tribunal (LPRT) as a result of its amalgamation with three other boards under the Land  
and Property Rights Tribunal Act, SA 2020, c L-2.3. This order refers to the MGB as the appeal  
was filed prior to the name change.  
OVERVIEW  
[1]  
This concerns appeals against two Development Permits issued for two infill developments  
on a lot to be subdivided. A total of nine variances (three for one house with a secondary suite and  
six for the other house) had been granted for this discretionary use. The MGB determined that the  
developments and variances resulted in impacts but not to the extent that it unduly interfered with  
the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially interfered with or affected the use, enjoyment or  
value of neighbouring parcels of land and accordingly upheld the approval of the development  
permits.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 1 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
REASON APPEAL HEARD BY MGB INSTEAD OF SDAB  
[2]  
is:  
Section 685(2.1) of the Act directs development appeals to the MGB when the subject land  
within the provincial “Green Area” as classified by the Minister responsible for the Public  
Lands Act, or  
contains or is adjacent to features of interest to the province a highway, body of water,  
sewage treatment, waste management facility, or historical site, or  
if the subject land is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted  
by the Natural Resources Conservation Board, Energy Resources Conservation Board,  
Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Alberta Utilities  
Commission or the Minister of Environment and Parks.  
[3]  
In this case, this appeal is before the MGB because the subject land contains, is adjacent to  
or is affected by the following:  
Body of water:  
The Bow River is adjacent to the north portion of the parcel  
PROPOSAL  
[4]  
The two development permit appeals concern a proposal to build two homes on a lot to be  
subdivided prior to construction on 66 New Street SE in Calgary. The east development proposes  
(DP1578 and 007) a house and secondary suite (East House), and the west development proposes  
(DP1579 008) a house (West House).  
Figure 1: Proposed Development  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 2 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
Figure 2: Proposed Development Site Plan  
BACKGROUND  
[5]  
The proposed developments are two houses, one with a secondary suite (collectively the  
Proposed Development) located on 66 New Street SE in the City of Calgary (City). The lot has  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 3 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
not yet been subdivided to accommodate the developments. The subject property is adjacent to the  
Bow River to the north and fronts onto New Street SE in the Inglewood neighbourhood of Calgary.  
[6]  
The subject site is designated Residential Contextual One/Two Dwelling (R-C2) in the  
Land Use Bylaw (LUB) 1P2007. In this district the proposed uses Single Detached Dwelling  
(west) and Single Detached/Secondary Suite (east) are discretionary uses.  
[7]  
The proposed developments were conditionally approved by the City’s DA with several  
variances to the LUB.  
East House Conditions  
[8]  
The East House was approved subject to the following:  
Prior to Release Requirements  
The following requirements shall be met prior to the release of the permit. All requirements shall  
be resolved to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority:  
Planning  
1. Provide an executed and registered (on both affected titles) Private Maintenance Easements  
located on 68 New St SE as per approved plans.  
Subdivision  
2. Provide a copy of the new Land Title and Plan of Subdivision upon registration of the  
subdivision.  
3. The applicant is to provide written confirmation stating the proposed property lines as  
noted in the site plan are exactly the same as the actual property lines described by the new  
land Title of the Plan of Subdivision.  
Transportation  
4. Provide the executed and registered (on title) Mutual Access Easement Agreement between  
the subdivided lots as proposed under subdivision application SB2017-0119. The  
agreement and registerable access right of way plan shall be to the satisfaction of  
Transportation Planning.  
5. After the Development Permit is approved but prior to its release, remit a performance  
security deposit (certified cheque, bank draft) of $8,000 for the proposed infrastructure  
listed below within the public right-of-way to address the requirements of the Business  
Unit. The amount of the deposit is calculated by Roads and is based on 100% of the  
estimated cost of construction.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 4 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
The developer is responsible to arrange for the construction of the infrastructure with their  
own forces and to enter into an Indemnification Agreement with Roads at the time of  
construction (the security deposit will be used to secure the work).  
Roads  
a. Construction of one (1) new driveway crossing on New Street SE.,  
b. Closure and removal of one (1) existing driveway crossing on New Street SE.,  
c. Rehabilitation of existing driveway crossings, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc., should  
it be deemed necessary through a site inspection by Roads personnel.  
The attached document outlines the process for providing the security deposit, scheduling  
of work, responsibility for damages, and requesting a refund, if applicable.  
6. Remit payment (certified cheque, bank draft) for the proposed infrastructure listed below  
within the public right-of-way to address the requirements of the Business Units. The  
amount is calculated by the respective Business Unit and is based on 100% of the estimated  
cost of construction.  
The developer is responsible to coordinate the timing or the constriction by City forces.  
The payment is non-refundable.  
Roads  
a. Street lighting upgrading adjacent to New Street if deemed necessary through a site  
inspection by Roads personnel.  
Development Engineering  
7. Provide satisfactory evidence confirming that the required Maintenance and Repair Access  
(flood barrier) Easement is executed and registered on the applicable title(s); to the  
satisfaction of Real Estate and Development Services.  
Permanent Conditions  
The following permanent conditions shall apply:  
Planning:  
8. The development shall be completed in its entirety, in accordance with the approved plans  
and conditions.  
9. No changes to the approved plans shall take place unless authorized by the Development  
Authority.  
10. Upon completion of the main floor, proof of the geodetic elevation of the constructed main  
floor must be submitted to and approved by the Development Authority prior to any further  
construction proceeding. Email confirmation to geodetic.review@calgary.ca.  
11. A Development Completion Permit is required prior to the development being occupied.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 5 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
Subdivision:  
12. The development permit has been approved using the proposed parcel property lines for  
the purpose of determining compliance with the relevant rules of the Land Use Bylaw  
1P2007 for the proposed Single Detached Dwelling. Should the actual property lines be  
different than the proposed property lines, the development permit shall be revoked and a  
new development permit shall be required.  
Transportation:  
13. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of public work and any damage during  
construction in City road right-of-ways, as required by the Manager, Transportation  
Planning. All work performed on public property shall be done in accordance with City  
standards.  
14. The approved driveway(s) required for this development must be constructed to the ramp  
grades as shown on the approved Development Permit plans. Negative sloping of the  
Driveway within the City boulevard is not acceptable. If actual grades do not match the  
approved grades, the developer/owner shall be responsible for all costs to remove and  
reconstruct the entire driveway ramp in accordance with approved grades.  
15. Indemnification Agreements are required for any work to be undertaken adjacent to or  
within City rights-of-way, bylawed setbacks and corner cut areas for the purposes of crane  
operation, shoring, tie-backs, piles, surface improvements, lay-bys, utility work, +15  
bridges, culverts, etc. All temporary shoring, etc., installed in the City rights-of-way,  
bylawed setbacks and corner cut areas must be removed to the satisfaction to the Manager  
of Transportation Planning, at the applicant’s expense, upon completion of the foundation.  
Prior to permission to construct, contact the Indemnification Agreement Coordinator,  
Roads at 403-268-3505.  
Development Engineering:  
16. If during construction of the development, the developer, the owner of the titled parcel, or  
any of their agents or contractors becomes aware of any contamination,  
a. The person discovering such contamination shall immediately report the  
contamination to the appropriate regulatory agency including, but not limited to,  
Alberta Environment, Alberta Health Services and the City of Calgary (311).  
b. On City of Calgary lands or utility corridors, The City of Calgary, Environmental  
and Safety Management division shall be immediately notified (311).  
17. Construction of the foundation cannot occur during flood season (which is between May  
15 and July 15; each year).  
For further details, contact Water Resources River Engineering (directly) at 403-  
268-4683.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 6 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
18. Single retaining walls 1.2 m in height or greater or terraced retaining walls 1.2 m in height  
or greater with a horizontal separation between walls of less than 3.6 m (3x height) require  
the approval of a Building Permit prior to construction.  
For retaining wall(s) that meet these criteria, the developer may either:  
a. Include the retaining walls with the Building Permit for the building, or  
b. Apply for a separate Building Permit for the retaining walls.  
It should be noted that the Building Permit for the building in site will not be released until  
the separate Building Permit for site retaining walls is approved.  
19. Portions of the development site is situated within the Floodway; and as such must conform  
to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, Part 3, Division 3 (or 2P280 for areas downtown).  
20. Portions of the development site is situated within the Flood Fringe; and as such must  
conform to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, Part 3, Division 3.  
21. No outdoor storage is permitted in the Floodway, as per Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 Part 3,  
Division 3.  
22. The developer/project manager, and their site designates, shall ensure a timely and  
complete implementation, inspection and maintenance of all practises specified in erosion  
and sediment control report and/or drawing(s) which comply with Section 3.0 of The City  
of Calgary Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control. Any amendments to the ESC  
document must comply with the requirements outlined in Section 3.0 of The City of  
Calgary Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control.  
23. The grades must match the grades indicated on the Development Permit approved plans.  
Upon a request from the Development Authority, the developer or owner of the titled parcel  
must confirm under seal from a Consulting Engineer or Alberta Land Surveyor, that the  
development was constructed in accordance with the grades submitted on the Development  
Permit.  
24. All rooftop drainage shall be controlled with eave troughs and downspouts that direct  
drainage to the street.  
25. No trees, shrubs, buildings, permanent structures or unauthorized grade changes are  
permitted within the utility rights-of-way.  
Parks:  
26. All construction is restricted to private land only; construction access is only permitted  
through existing driveways. At no point during construction are the natural areas adjacent  
to the Bow River to be disturbed.  
27. Prior to the commencement of any development activity or stripping and grading  
operations, the silt protection fencing shall be installed along the construction disturbance  
line within the northern property line, adjacent to the Bow River. This fencing is to be  
inspected and approved by the Parks Development Inspector at (403) 268-5325.  
28. Drainage from the development site into the adjacent natural area/Bow River is not  
permitted.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 7 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
29. All lands below the high water mark (outside property line) are crown lands and for any  
work to be completed in this area, the applicant must have appropriate Provincial and  
Federal approvals under the Public Lands Act, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the  
Navigable Waters Protection Act, etc.  
West House Conditions  
[9]  
The West House was approved subject to the following conditions:  
Prior to Release Requirements  
The following requirements shall be met prior to the release of the permit. All requirements shall  
be resolved to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority:  
Subdivision:  
1. Provide a copy of the new Land Title and Plan of Subdivision upon registration of the  
subdivision.  
2. The applicant is to provide written confirmation stating the proposed property lines as  
noted in the site plan are exactly the same as the actual property lines described by the new  
Land Title of the Plan of Subdivision.  
Transportation:  
3. Provide the executed and registered (on title) Mutual Access Easement Agreement between  
the subdivided lots as proposed under subdivision application SB2017-0119. The  
agreement and registerable access right of way plan shall be to the satisfaction of  
Transportation Planning.  
4. After the Development Permit is approved but prior to its release, remit a performance  
security deposit (certified cheque, bank draft) of $8,000 for the proposed infrastructure  
listed below within the public right-of-way to address the requirements of the Business  
Unit. The amount of the deposit is calculated by Roads and is based on 100% of the  
estimated cost of construction.  
The developer is responsible to arrange for the construction of the infrastructure with their  
own forces and to enter into an Indemnification Agreement with Roads at the time of  
construction (the security deposit will be used to secure the work).  
Roads  
d. Construction of one (1) new driveway crossing on New Street SE.,  
e. Closure and removal of one (1) existing driveway crossing on New Street SE.,  
f. Rehabilitation of existing driveway crossings, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc., should  
it be deemed necessary through a site inspection by Roads personnel.  
The attached document outlines the process for providing the security deposit, scheduling  
of work, responsibility for damages, and requesting a refund, if applicable.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 8 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
5. Remit payment (certified cheque, bank draft) for the proposed infrastructure listed below  
within the public right-of-way to address the requirements of the Business Units. The  
amount is calculated by the respective Business Unit and is based on 100% of the estimated  
cost of construction.  
The developer is responsible to coordinate the timing or the constriction by City forces.  
The payment is non-refundable.  
Roads  
b. Street lighting upgrading adjacent to New Street if deemed necessary through a site  
inspection by Roads personnel.  
Development Engineering  
6. Provide satisfactory evidence confirming that the required Maintenance and Repair Access  
(flood barrier) Easement is executed and registered on the applicable title(s); to the  
satisfaction of Real Estate and Development Services.  
Public Infrastructure  
7. After the Development Permit is approved but prior to its release, the landowner shall  
execute an Off-Site Levy Agreement for the payment of off-site levies pursuant to Bylaw  
2M2016. The off-site levy is based on a 2021 development approval date and was based  
on the following:  
Phase  
1
Description  
66 New Street SE  
Unit(s)  
New Single: 1  
Based on the information above, the preliminary estimate is $7,373.00.  
Should payment be made prior to release of the development permit, an Off-Site Levy  
Agreement will not be required.  
Include the completed Payment Submission Form, which was emailed to the  
applicant.  
Only certified cheques or bank drafts made payable to the City of Calgary are  
acceptable.  
Permanent Conditions  
The following permanent conditions shall apply:  
Planning:  
8. The development shall be completed in its entirety, in accordance with the approved plans  
and conditions.  
9. No changes to the approved plans shall take place unless authorized by the Development  
Authority.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 9 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
10. Upon completion of the main floor, proof of the geodetic elevation of the constructed main  
floor must be submitted to and approved by the Development Authority prior to any further  
construction proceeding. Email confirmation to geodetic.review@calgary.ca.  
11. A Development Completion Permit is required prior to the development being occupied.  
Subdivision:  
12. The development permit has been approved using the proposed parcel property lines for  
the purpose of determining compliance with the relevant rules of the Land Use Bylaw  
1P2007 for the proposed Single Detached Dwelling. Should the actual property lines be  
different than the proposed property lines, the development permit shall be revoked and a  
new development permit shall be required.  
Transportation:  
13. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of public work and any damage during  
construction in City road right-of-ways, as required by the Manager, Transportation  
Planning. All work performed on public property shall be done in accordance with City  
standards.  
14. The approved driveway(s) required for this development must be constructed to the ramp  
grades as shown on the approved Development Permit plans. Negative sloping of the  
Driveway within the City boulevard is not acceptable. If actual grades do not match the  
approved grades, the developer/owner shall be responsible for all costs to remove and  
reconstruct the entire driveway ramp in accordance with approved grades.  
15. Indemnification Agreements are required for any work to be undertaken adjacent to or  
within City rights-of-way, bylawed setbacks and corner cut areas for the purposes of crane  
operation, shoring, tie-backs, piles, surface improvements, lay-bys, utility work, +15  
bridges, culverts, etc. All temporary shoring, etc., installed in the City rights-of-way,  
bylawed setbacks and corner cut areas must be removed to the satisfaction to the Manager  
of Transportation Planning, at the applicant’s expense, upon completion of the foundation.  
Prior to permission to construct, contact the Indemnification Agreement Coordinator,  
Roads at 403-268-3505.  
Development Engineering:  
16. If during construction of the development, the developer, the owner of the titled parcel, or  
any of their agents or contractors becomes aware of any contamination,  
a. The person discovering such contamination shall immediately report the  
contamination to the appropriate regulatory agency including, but not limited to,  
Alberta Environment, Alberta Health Services and the City of Calgary (311).  
b. On City of Calgary lands or utility corridors, The City of Calgary, Environmental  
and Safety Management division shall be immediately notified (311).  
17. A Geotechnical Report; prepared by a qualified professional, under seal and permit to  
practice stamp; for review and acceptance by the City of Calgary; must be provided after  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 10 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
construction is complete. This is required to confirm the floodwall is structurally sound  
and impermeable.  
For further details, contact Water Resources River Engineering (directly) at 403-268-  
4683.  
18. The parcel shall be developed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the  
above noted Geotechnical Report.  
19. The applicant and/or developer are responsible for coordinating any/all applicable City of  
Calgary inspections before, during and after constructing the foundation.  
For further details, contact Water Resources Infrastructure Delivery Inspector at 403-  
660-3997 OR Water Resources River Engineering at 403-268-4683.  
20. Construction of the foundation cannot occur during flood season (which is between May  
15 and July 15; each year).  
For further details, contact Water Resources River Engineering (directly) at 403-  
268-4683.  
21. Single retaining walls 1.2 m in height or greater or terraced retaining walls 1.2 m in height  
or greater with a horizontal separation between walls of less than 3.6 m (3x height) require  
the approval of a Building Permit prior to construction.  
For retaining wall(s) that meet these criteria, the developer may either:  
c. Include the retaining walls with the Building Permit for the building, or  
d. Apply for a separate Building Permit for the retaining walls.  
It should be noted that the Building Permit for the building in site will not be released until  
the separate Building Permit for site retaining walls is approved.  
22. Portions of the development site is situated within the Floodway; and as such must conform  
to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, Part 3, Division 3 (or 2P280 for areas downtown).  
23. Portions of the development site is situated within the Flood Fringe; and as such must  
conform to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, Part 3, Division 3.  
24. No outdoor storage is permitted in the Floodway, as per Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 Part 3,  
Division 3.  
25. The developer/project manager, and their site designates, shall ensure a timely and  
complete implementation, inspection and maintenance of all practises specified in erosion  
and sediment control report and/or drawing(s) which comply with Section 3.0 of The City  
of Calgary Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control. Any amendments to the ESC  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 11 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
document must comply with the requirements outlined in Section 3.0 of The City of  
Calgary Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control.  
26. The grades must match the grades indicated on the Development Permit approved plans.  
Upon a request from the Development Authority, the developer or owner of the titled parcel  
must confirm under seal from a Consulting Engineer or Alberta Land Surveyor, that the  
development was constructed in accordance with the grades submitted on the Development  
Permit.  
27. All rooftop drainage shall be controlled with eave troughs and downspouts that direct  
drainage to the street.  
28. No trees, shrubs, buildings, permanent structures or unauthorized grade changes are  
permitted within the utility rights-of-way.  
Parks:  
29. All construction is restricted to private land only; construction access is only permitted  
through existing driveways. At no point during construction are the natural areas adjacent  
to the Bow River to be disturbed.  
30. Prior to the commencement of any development activity or stripping and grading  
operations, the silt protection fencing shall be installed along the construction disturbance  
line within the northern property line, adjacent to the Bow River. This fencing is to be  
inspected and approved by the Parks Development Inspector at (403) 268-5325.  
31. Drainage from the development site into the adjacent natural area/Bow River is not  
permitted.  
32. All lands below the high water mark (outside property line) are crown lands and for any  
work to be completed in this area, the applicant must have appropriate Provincial and  
Federal approvals under the Public Lands Act, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the  
Navigable Waters Protection Act, etc.  
Public Infrastructure:  
33. Pursuant to Bylaw 2M2016, off-site levies are applicable.  
34. After approval of the Development Permit but prior to issuance of a Development  
Completion Permit or any occupancy of the building, payment shall be made for off-site  
levies pursuant to Bylaw 2M2016. To obtain a final estimate, contact the Public  
Infrastructure Coordinator, Calgary Approvals Coordination at 403-268-6739 or email  
offsitelevy@calgary.ca.  
[10] Three parties appealed the East House development, and two parties appealed the West  
House.  
[11] After the hearing, the MGB panel asked the parties for additional written submissions on  
how section 687(3)(d) of the Act should be interpreted having regard for previous authorities,  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 12 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
including Alberta Courts and how this interpretation should be applied to the facts of the subject  
cases.  
ISSUES  
[12] In all cases, the legislation requires the MGB to address whether a proposal complies with  
the Act, the Regulation, the Land Use Bylaw (LUB), any statutory plans, and the South  
Saskatchewan Regional Plan, which is the applicable Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA)  
regional plan, (see section 687(3) and 618.3 of the Act). In this particular case, the parties focused  
on the following issues:  
1. Does the Proposed Development meet the statutory plans?  
a. Does it meet the Municipal Development Plan (MDP)?  
b. Does it meet the Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP)?  
c. Does the proposed development meet the Infill Guidelines?  
2. Because the Proposed Development is in the Bow River Floodway and Flood Plain,  
will it negatively impact flood protection?  
3. Is it appropriate to vary standards in the LUB and will the following nine variances  
(three for the East and six for the West Houses) unduly interfere the amenities of the  
neighbourhood and/or materially interfere with the use, enjoyment or value of  
neighbouring parcels of land?  
East House  
a. LUB 436: Side property line setback 0.08 metres vs. 1.2 metres or 1.12  
metre variance for the garage which is 6.7 metres (East House Side Yard  
Setback);  
b. LUB 438: Building Height 49.80 or a 1.43 metre variance (East House  
Height Variance); and  
c. LUB 341: Driveway width is 1.91 metres wide vs. 3.0 metres or a 1.09  
metre variance (East House Driveway Variance).  
West House  
a. LUB 435: Building setback from the front property line 4.45 metres vs 5.12  
metres or a 0.67 metre variance (West House Front Setback);  
b. LUB 336: Eaves projecting into front setback area 1.28 metres vs 0.6  
metres or a 0.68 metre variance (West House Front Projection);  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 13 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
c. LUB 436: Side property line setback 0.08 metres vs. 1.2 metres or a 1.12  
metre variance for the length of the garage which is about 6.7 metres (West  
House Side Yard Setback);  
d. LUB 438: Building Height 49.60 or a 1.4 metre variance (West House  
Height Variance);  
e. LUB 360(2) Building Height on a Sloped Parcel. Plans indicate a portion of  
the building within the maximum building height chamfer;  
f. LUB 341: Driveway width is 1.91 meres wide vs. 3.0 metres or a 1.09 metre  
variance (West House Driveway Variance).  
SUMMARY OF THE DA’S POSITION  
[13] The DA explained the background, history and timeline of the application. The DA used  
air photos and current photos to explain the context of the subject parcel and area.  
[14] There are several levels of plans and bylaws that apply to the subject parcel. Firstly, there  
are the provincial planning documents and the intermunicipal plan, which align with the City’s  
Municipal Development Plan (MDP). The Inglewood Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) and Land  
Use Bylaw (LUB) align with the MDP; other non statutory documents also align with the MDP,  
such as the Low Density Residential Guidelines for Established Communities (Infill Guidelines),  
Policy to Guide Discretion for Secondary Suites and Backyard Suites and Calgary River Valleys  
Plan.  
[15] The MDP’s objective in s. 2.3.1 Housing includes ensuring “a choice of housing forms…”  
and its policies provide for a “wide range of housing types, tenures (rental and ownership) and  
densities to create diverse neighbourhoods that include (i) a mix of housing types…” . In the  
General Policies for Developed Residential Area (s. 3.5.1) the Policies are “unique to the inner  
City Area” and the Land Use Policies:  
Recognize the predominantly low-density residential nature of Developed  
Residential Areas and support retention of housing stock or moderate  
intensification in a form and nature that respects the scale and character of the  
neighbourhood. Local commercial development within residential areas, that is of  
a scale and intensity that supports residents’ commercial needs is supported.  
[16] The ARP states “There is a clear need to increase Inglewood’s population” (s. 2.1) and the  
Prime Objective in s. 2.2 is stated as “encourage the construction of more housing to increase the  
population. However, the policies in s. 2.3.2 further state that “new residential development  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 14 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
should respect the surrounding housing and contribute to an attractive streetscape.” With respect  
to Infill Housing the ARP explains  
New narrow lot housing (infill) has been built in Inglewood as in other inner city  
communities. This type of housing has been very controversial in several  
communities because it often entails the constriction of two homes on a site which  
originally accommodated a single bungalow. The new homes are usually narrower,  
taller and extend much further back in the yard than the adjacent older homes  
causing a variety of shadowing, privacy, and streetscape impacts.  
City Council has adopted a number of measures designed to ensure the opportunity  
for public review and appeal of infill housing applications and decisions. Generally  
the quality of infill housing being constructed in the inner city is very high and the  
new buildings are often replacing deteriorated houses in the community.  
[17] The LUB Residential – Contextual One/Two Dwelling (RC2) District’s purpose “is  
intended to accommodate existing residential development and contextually sensitive  
redevelopment in the form of Duplex Dwellings, Semi-detached Dwellings, and Single Detached  
Dwellings in the Developed Area. The DA explained “contextual” is generally used to describe  
sensitive development.  
[18] The Infill Guidelines are intended to establish general guidelines and achieve a high  
standard of design and development and to provide an evaluation tool for the City in discretionary  
approvals and assist the community and residents in their review of applications. The Infill  
Guidelines are not intended to restrict design flexibility or creativity, but rather to ensure  
contextually sensitive development and avoid problems commonly associated with development  
in an established neighbourhood.  
[19] The Calgary River Valleys Plan is a non-statutory document that was first adopted in 1983.  
The Flood Rules and flood mapping address a 1:100 flood event while the flood of 2013 was a  
1:75 flood event. In 2014 Council incorporated flood rules into the MDP (s. 4.4) and the LUB was  
amended adopting stricter rules. Further, a comprehensive approach for flood risk reduction  
measures for this parcel include the Inglewood Flood Barrier (completed in 2008), Ghost Reservoir  
Agreement (in place), Glenmore Gate Upgrade (completed 2020) and the Springbank Off Stream  
Reservoir (planning). City administration is working with the province to develop new flood maps  
and the designated flood level for the subject area is proposed to be lower than the current  
elevation. The subject parcel will remain in the Flood Fringe.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 15 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
[20] The proposed development complies with the LUB flood mitigation rules. The  
developments have sewer back flow valves indicated on basement floor plans and the mechanical  
and electrical are above the flood level. As well, there are other design measures that have been  
incorporated to mitigate flood risks. The DA explained the Flood Rules in the LUB apply to both  
permitted and discretionary use developments. When developments are adjacent to infrastructure,  
in this case the Inglewood Flood Barrier, the applications are circulated to River Engineering  
department and conditions were applied as recommended. Applications are also circulated to River  
Engineering when the applications are contrary to policies or require a relaxation of flood rules –  
but neither of these apply in this case. It was only sent to River Engineering because of the flood  
barrier.  
[21] The Inglewood Flood Barrier was completed in 2008 and is a combination of berms and  
walls. Berms are typically raised to a required elevation and have a compacted clay core. The  
Floodwall is made from concrete with an extended footing and compacted clay blanket.  
Compacted clay increases the seepage paths during high groundwater/flooding, therefore delaying  
and reducing groundwater seepage and ponding that will occur in the community.  
[22] The City’s River Engineering Department worked with the Applicant to ensure there is an  
acceptable space between the floodwall and foundation for maintenance and repairs; proper  
backfill would be used so the clay blanket will remain impermeable and sealed to the foundation  
to mitigate seepage. Further, the works will be inspected by the City and approved by an  
independent geotechnical engineer when complete.  
[23] There will be easements for the flood barrier registered on title to allow maintenance and  
repairs to the floodwall and flood berm as well as access between the proposed buildings. The  
easements between each landowner will allow the City to have access to the assets to ensure they  
continue to function as intended. Conditions are included in the approval with respect to the Flood  
Barrier (for example see condition 6, 17, 19 and 20 of the approval for C-008). As well, there are  
advisory conditions included which outline the LUB rules and indicate best practices.  
[24] The planning analysis considered Building Mass as per the Infill Guidelines (s. 4.4) which  
require “new development should respect the existing scale and massing of its immediate  
surroundings”. In this case, the DA was satisfied the proposed buildings, while taller, are not  
inconsistent with the scale and context of the street. The proposed setbacks fit within the context  
of New Street.  
[25] In this case the development plans indicate a building setback of 4.45 m (-0.67m) from the  
front property line; however, the eaves project 1.28m (+0.68m) into the front setback area. The  
Infill Guidelines explain that most established communities have rear lanes and that front  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 16 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
driveways can detract from the visual character of the street and may result in front yards that are  
characterized by parked cars and do not promote a street friendly appearance. In this case, while  
there will be an additional garage and driveway, the two developments will share a driveway and  
the garages are turned to lessen the visual impact on the street. The LUB states that driveways are  
normally 3.0 m in width and the plans indicate each driveway will be 1.91 m (-1.09 m).  
[26] Side yard setbacks are required to provide unobstructed access to the exterior from the front  
to the rear of the house. Normally 1.2 m is required; however, the plans indicate a building setback  
between the garage and west side property line would be 0.08 m (-1.12 m). There will be free and  
clear access to the rear between the developments. Rear setbacks allow for outdoor activity and  
maintain the pattern of rear amenity space typical of the surrounding community (Infill  
Guidelines).  
[27] Building depth should respect the building depth of existing adjacent developments and is  
intended to decrease the negative impact of mass on neighbouring homes with respect to  
shadowing and privacy. As well, the placement of windows should respect privacy (slide 64 of  
75).  
[28] The DA did not provide submissions on the additional information requested by the MGB.  
SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S POSITION  
[29] The Applicant requests the MGB confirm the development permits as issued by the DA.  
The proposed developments are compatible with the surrounding land uses, and consistent with  
the purpose and intent of Part 17 of the Act, the applicable statutory plans and planning and  
development policies, and the purpose and intent of the applicable land use district. The variances  
sought by the Applicant will not interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or interfere  
with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land.  
[30] The development permits were issued by the DA in accordance with s. 642(2) of the Act,  
which provides that a DA may issue a development permit for discretionary uses and the variance  
authority set out in the LUB.  
[31] The applicable statutory plans in the subject case are the MDP and the Inglewood ARP.  
The MGB is not required to comply with or have regard to the Low Density Residential Housing  
Guidelines for Established Communities referenced in the notices of appeal; however, the MGB  
may consider them a relevant planning consideration.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 17 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
[32] The proposed development is based on a thoughtful design which respects existing  
development in the area, while enhancing the character of the neighbourhood. The design evolved  
over time based on community consultation, and the Applicant’s consideration and application of  
best practices and guiding principles for design, both generally and with respect to New Street and  
the subject site.  
[33] The concerns raised by the Appellants have been thoroughly canvassed, considered and  
addressed. Many of the design features of the proposed development are a direct result of feedback  
received from neighbouring landowners. The proposed development enjoys considerable support  
from the community, as demonstrated by the letters of support and presentations at the hearing.  
[34] The variances sought by the Applicant do not create an undue or material interference,  
within the meaning of s. 687(3)(d) of the Act. The variances are required to accommodate design  
features intended to enhance the compatibility of the proposed development with the  
neighbourhood, ensure on-going access to and maintenance of flood management features, and  
contribute to a pedestrian friendly and attractive streetscape.  
[35] All developments have potential impacts, both positive and negative. The purpose of Part  
17 of the Act is to balance individual rights and the public interest so as to “achieve the orderly,  
economical and beneficial development, use of land”. The proposed development strikes the  
appropriate balance and should be approved.  
New Street Character and Context  
[36] New Street was created in 1906 and contains predominantly single family houses though  
the houses range in size. New Street is an important active mobility corridor as it presents a rare  
interruption to the Bow River Pathway system. The vast majority of pathway users take the street  
instead of using the much longer pathway bypass.  
[37] The flood berm was started in 1993 and completed in 2012 and was successful in protecting  
the community in 2013. The berm consists of a mix of walls and earthen berms that have been  
landscaped to different degrees by individual affected properties. It is a key feature of the  
neighbourhood that must be preserved and protected.  
[38] New Street presents contextual challenges due to the varied size and proportion of its lots.  
Some parcels back directly onto the Bow River and are fairly large, while others back onto other  
lots and are small. The Applicant’s goal has been to design houses that respect both the value of  
the larger lots but also the scale of the smaller lots.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 18 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
[39] The Applicant identified the following principles and best practices in designing the  
development:  
1. Automobile Interface: No garage doors/driveway pads fronting the street; retain on-street  
parking.  
2. Human Interface: Front doors, patios/porches, & smaller scale buildings facing the street  
3. Street to Stream: Mitigate hardscaping with rain gardens and possibly green roofs.  
4. Affordable Rental Retention: Retain the affordable rental that 66 New Street has offered  
the street for decades.  
5. Berm Access: Reverse redevelopment trend of losing berm access by securing berm access  
6. Aging in Place: Address the multi-generational and aging-in-place needs of the community  
through redevelopment.  
[40] While many options were considered, the Applicant decided the side by side subdivision  
was best so as to allow both parcels access to the river. Instead of front facing double garages  
which would not be desirable for the street interface and would not be a positive contribution to  
the walkability and pedestrian friendliness that characterizes New Street, the proposed  
development has the garages facing each other with a common driveway. To achieve this, the  
design proposes a shared driveway 3.84 m in width at the front property line and a zero-lot-line  
relationship for a portion of the garages with the adjacent property lines. The proposed layout is a  
unique and viable way to provide the density and associated parking required on this parcel without  
compromising the curb appeal and walkability of the street.  
[41] The next concern raised was the depth of the house, and in response the Applicant reduced  
the length significantly. The lost square footage was recovered by adding a third floor. However,  
the portion of the house that projects closest to the street and pedestrian realm are only two storeys  
on the east and a single storey on the west. This creates a modest pedestrian-friendly curb presence  
at the street that is in keeping with the scale of the original houses.  
[42] The roof lines have been kept to the low slope of 3:12, typical of Prairie Style houses and  
well-suited against the varied architectural aesthetic on New Street.  
[43] The house designs feature unobstructed side yards between the houses, providing 8 feet of  
clear space in the event that emergency access by personnel and/or equipment is required to the  
Bow River or to the Inglewood Flood Protection Berm. A mutual access agreement will be  
registered at Land Titles Office against both properties to ensure this access corridor is preserved  
and accessible indefinitely.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 19 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
[44] It was a goal of the proposed development to provide two new single detached dwellings  
while also replacing the existing rental units on a one-for-one basis with the inclusion of secondary  
suites. This goal has been achieved on the east parcel with the suite above the garage, and the west  
unit has been designed to be able to accommodate a similar secondary suite in the future subject  
to the required approvals.  
[45] With respect to aging in place, both houses can accommodate elevators and both houses  
can be accessed via the berm ramp to the rear.  
[46] The proposed development is thoughtfully designed with regard not only to respecting but  
enhancing the character of the neighbourhood. The variances sought are minor in nature, and the  
design of the Proposed Development has evolved over time to respond to community concerns,  
and to maximize compatibility, parcel layout, and the privacy of neighbouring landowners. Many  
elements of the massing and design of the Proposed Development are in direct response to these  
considerations.  
[47] The variances should be considered in context, taking into account factors such as the  
overall design of the proposed development, rationale for the variance and the steps to minimize  
or address any potential impact or interference. The relevant question is not whether the  
development has any impact, as all development will have impacts whether or not variances are  
required. The test is more focused whether the variance sought constitutes an undue or material  
interference and must be applied in the context of the legislative and planning framework.  
[48] The proposed variances to the front and side yard setback significantly enhance the design,  
compatibility, and function of the development. The reduced front yard setback decreases the  
building depth which minimizes the impact of the development on neighbouring landowners’  
privacy and view and decreases light obstruction. The reduced front setback also creates better  
street interaction and allows two compliant parking stalls.  
[49] The variance with respect to the side property line setbacks does not extend the entire  
length of the buildings, and throughout the design process was reduced from 9.6 metres to 6.7  
metres. The Applicant proposes to provide additional amenity areas to neighbouring properties  
along the portion of the side property line where the setback is not reduced. The secondary suite  
that was initially proposed above the west residence was removed, to reduce the impact on the  
neighbouring property.  
Applicable Statutory Plans and Infill Guidelines  
[50] The Applicants agree that the Proposed Development must comply with the applicable  
statutory plans. The Infill Guidelines are a relevant planning consideration but do not bind the  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 20 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
MGB. The requirement set out in the ARP is for the Infill Guidelines to be “considered” (ARP,  
Policy 2.4.8). In any event, the Applicant submits the Proposed Development is fully consistent  
with the guidelines. The Infill Guidelines identify they are a “supplementary guide to the Land  
Use Bylaw and to any relevant Area Redevelopment Plans”: the Guidelines are “not intended to  
prescribe rigid rules or propose a specific design solutions, which could bring about a homogenous  
appearance to Calgary’s Established Communities” (ARP, Policies 2.3.2 and 2.3.6).  
Flood Protection  
[51] The Appellants argue that the Proposed Development will interfere with the integrity of  
the Inglewood Flood Protection Berm, which is a critical flood protection feature. The basis for  
the Appellants’ speculation appears to be that no engineering reports have been provided; however,  
the City has granted permission to construct portions of the Proposed Development within the  
easement area. The applications were extensively reviewed by the City’s River Engineering  
department and found to be satisfactory.  
[52] There are multiple conditions of approval attached to development permits for the  
Proposed Development which address flood protection and mitigation measures. In addition, the  
Development Permit for the west house specifically requires:  
17. A Geotechnical Report; prepared by a qualified professional, under seal and  
permit to practice stamp; for review and acceptance by the City of Calgary; must  
be provided after construction is complete. This is required to confirm the floodwall  
is structurally sound and impermeable.  
18. The parcel shall be developed in accordance with the recommendations outlined  
in the above noted Geotechnical Report.  
[53] A key element of the Proposed Development is the Maintenance and Repair Access (Flood  
Barrier) Easement (Flood Barrier Easement) located between the two houses, and which is  
required to be registered against title to the lands. The Flood Barrier Easement will ensure access  
to the Flood Protection Berm for the purpose of maintenance, and is sufficiently wide (8 feet) to  
allow access by emergency vehicles and construction vehicles and equipment.  
[54] The appreciable width of the Flood Barrier Easement would not be possible were it not for  
the configuration of the Proposed Development. Two narrower flood barrier easements (for  
example, a 4 foot wide easement to the east of the east house and a 4 foot wide easement to the  
west of the west house) would be significantly less valuable, in terms of access to and maintenance  
of protection of the Flood Protection Berm. This consideration informed a number of the design  
features of the Proposed Development.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 21 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
[55] The Proposed Development rear yard setback is much greater than the minimum required  
by the LUB as a result of consultation with the community. However, this reduction of the rear  
yard projection requires the additional height to recover the square footage from reducing the rear  
yard projection the square footage is consistent with existing development in the neighbourhood.  
The Applicant noted the requested variances to the height requirement (1.4 and 1.23 m) were  
considered compatible with the majority of the 2-2.5 storey dwellings in the area.  
[56] The reduced rear yard projection also results in the need for a small variance to the front  
property line. The effect of this reduction is mitigated by reduced height of the front portion of the  
house and the streetscape design features of the Proposed Development which present an attractive  
front. When viewed in context the proposed front yard setback is consistent with surrounding  
development.  
[57] The reduced side property line setbacks are necessary in order to accommodate the wider  
flood barrier easement which is a key feature of the development.  
[58] Mr. Glassco’s concerns regarding the west side property line setback (reduced to 0.0  
metres) appear to arise largely as a result of the location of his carport, which is itself a zero lot  
line development. Mr. Glassco has been permitted to benefit from zero lot line development, and  
maximize the usable area of his property. This should not automatically preclude a neighbouring  
landowner from the same benefit. The “tunnel effect” and other alleged issues Mr. Glassco raises  
in his submissions are a result as the location of his carport as much as they arise from the location  
of the Proposed Development.  
[59] Mr. Glassco notes that the roof of the carport was not built to withstand snow loads, and  
cites drainage and maintenance issues. However, Mr. Glassco is not entitled or permitted to  
discharge snow, water, or other materials or drainage from his carport onto the lands to the east,  
nor is he entitled to enter on to the lands to the east to maintain his carport. These are issues Mr.  
Glassco is required to address within the boundaries of his own property. The side façade of the  
proposed west house which abuts the west property line will be stucco, a maintenance free  
material.  
[60] Any loss of mature trees associated with this mature development is sufficiently  
compensated for by other landscaping and design features of the Proposed Development.  
Post hearing submissions  
[61] Section 687(3)(d) sets out the test for determining whether a variance should be allowed.  
Subsections 687(3)(d)(i)(A) and (B), require the MGB to determine whether the proposed  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 22 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
development will either unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially  
interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of the neighbouring parcels of land. To find  
the test under s. 687(3)(d)(i) is not met, the MGB must have actual evidence of interference.  
[62] Additionally, mere evidence of any interference is not sufficient to support a finding that a  
variance cannot be issued under 687(3)(d). Section 687(3)(d)(i)(A) asks whether the proposed  
development “unduly” interferes and section 687(3)(d)(i)(B) requires “material” interference. The  
words “unduly” and “material” are important and should not be ignored. The MGB is required to  
weigh all the evidence before it and determine whether the test in s. 687(3)(d)(i) is met.  
[63] None of the variances requested will have undue or material impacts on the amenities of  
the neighbourhood or the value, use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The front yard  
setback is consistent with the setbacks of neighbouring developments and in keeping with context  
of the neighbourhood. Further, the impact is mitigated by reduced height at the front. Similarly the  
proposed height, is compatible with other 2 or 2 ½ storey houses in the area, and there is no  
evidence to show the variance will cause any undue or material interference. With respect to side  
property line setbacks, they allow the proposed development to accommodate a flood barrier  
access easement, which is a benefit to the area; further, the objections concerning the Glassco  
property result largely from the location of the existing carport to the west, which itself has a zero-  
lot line configuration.  
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PARTIES’ POSITIONS  
Parties In Support of the Appeal  
D. Bowles and G. Kerr  
[64] The primary concern raised is with the Flood Barrier and the impact the development will  
have on the flood protection for the Inglewood community and their property. It is noted the Access  
Easement Agreement on the subject property is different than the Easement and Restrictive  
Covenant Agreement that was imposed on the Bowles/Kerr property which is on the same berm.  
Ms. Bowles and Mr. Kerr question why the proposed development was granted approval to  
construct a foundation and change grading in the Access Easement Area when they were not  
allowed to plant a tree in the same area on their property.  
[65] The proposed development should not be allowed to encroach the Berm Easement Area -  
the Inglewood Flood Barrier is vital to the protection of the Inglewood community and protecting  
existing flood infrastructure within the City is critical.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 23 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
R. Griebel and R. Harvey  
[66] The greatest concern Ms. Griebel and Mr. Harvey have with the proposed development is  
the impact the development may have on the flood barrier, which would greatly affect the larger  
community.  
[67] Recognizing that Inglewood was declared as a heritage district in 1995, one of the key  
tenets for the Inglewood Design Guidelines was that “Architecture and landscape design should  
respect the existing urban scale and character of Inglewood, and be inspired by local climate,  
topography, history and Building practice.” The proposed development’s height exceeds  
regulation; its massing is equivalent to a three-story apartment building; and its banal design does  
little to contribute to the historic character of the street. Additionally, it will seriously impact the  
integrity of the house on the west which was designed by a nationally renowned architect and  
city planner, Jack Long, who was instrumental in revitalizing the community.  
[68] The environmental benefits of urban greenspaces are well known, including greenhouse  
gas reduction, storm water control, and biodiversity conservation. The proposed development will  
reduce the greenspace on the street and will result in the removal of large mature trees on both the  
west and east border of the site. Additionally, the massing will result in loss of sunlight for all  
properties close to the development. From their residence, which is three houses east, they will  
have a view of a 33.3 foot wall from their backyard, rather than the current view of trees and  
natural light which are valued in a north facing yard.  
[69] Overall, while a new housing development on the subject site is welcomed, the proposed  
design is not suitable for a 66 foot wide lot, and does nothing to contribute to the safety, character,  
scale and environmental well-being of this historic neighbourhood.  
S. Gruetzner  
[70] Ms. Gruetzner is the owner and resident of 31 New Street SE and a professional Landscape  
Architect. She supports the appeal in its entirety for all the reasons highlighted in the notice of  
appeal and is concerned the proposed development will dramatically alter the streetscape of New  
Street.  
[71] In Ms. Gruetzner’s professional opinion, New Street SE is a Cultural Landscape. It is one  
of the oldest streets in Calgary dating back to the late 1880s and tells the story of Calgary’s early  
history. It survives as a monument to the era when Fort Calgary and Inglewood were the centre  
and roots of what is now a major Canadian city – a time in Calgary’s history that was focused on  
vision, opportunity, justice, fairness and compassion.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 24 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
[72] The Major Stewart House, a Provincial Historic Resource, built in 1885, is the gateway to  
the west end of New St. Major Stewart and Sir Cecil Denny, NWMP were amongst Calgary’s first  
developers. Many of the heritage homes that remain on New St are on land that Denny was given  
when he left the force.  
[73] The Grand Trunk Railway ran parallel to New Street, following the existing regional bike  
path terminating at Fort Calgary. The original CPR line runs through Inglewood and 9th Ave.  
Inglewood’s Main Street, was Calgary’s original Central Business District.  
[74] Throughout the documents there are many comments related to the streetscape. A  
traditional definition of a streetscape would include the roadway and adjacent treatments including  
sidewalks, lighting, street furniture and landscaping. This definition cannot be applied to a street  
like New Street as it is an historic, established streetscape.  
[75] While the Applicant suggests that the New Street streetscape does not include trees, Ms.  
Gruetzner argues that would be true if using a cookie cutter suburban lollipop tree in the boulevard  
treatment. New Street’s streetscape is defined by its trees – it is the most dominant characteristic.  
The proposed development provides minimal opportunities for the scale and type of landscaping  
that defines the street.  
[76] The most significant element of a streetscape such as New Street is the rhythm of the street  
or the interface of the houses to the street. For the most part the houses are setback equidistantly  
from the street and respect the setbacks of the adjacent homes. Similar treatments exist in the rear  
yards. The proposed developments do not respect the existing setback pattern on the street and  
introduce a completely foreign approach to the street interface. In particular, the proposed front  
yard garages interrupt the existing street pattern significantly. There are currently no front yard  
garages on New Street.  
[77] All of the houses on New Street are separated by side yards. The proposed development  
introduces a zero-lot line pattern with the introduction of garages on both of the adjacent property  
lines. There are no zero-lot line developments in the established streetscape of New Street. The  
rationale that because it is a garage it would be acceptable is ridiculous.  
[78] Streetscape discussions on streets such as New St are sometimes confused with debates  
about contemporary vs historic architecture. As the street evolves, New Street is a blend of old and  
new homes. Some of the new homes have been successfully integrated into the streetscape and  
others have not. The discussion should be focused on whether the proposed development is  
complimentary, compatible, and subordinate to the character of the established street and adjacent  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 25 of 89  
BOARD ORDER:  
FILE:  
MGB 001/22  
D21/CALG/C-007  
D21/CALG/C-008  
properties. The fact the development proposes a front yard garage with a zero-lot line solution  
renders the development as an unacceptable and incompatible streetscape.  
[79] The proposed development is not consistent with the policies of the Inglewood ARP and  
Infill Housing Guidelines. The policies of these documents, approved by Council, require that the  
context of the immediate streetscape needs to be considered. In all aspects, the development does  
not respect the streetscape and is not sensitive to the adjacent homes. It also does not respect the  
existing homes on New Street and the historic character of the area.  
[80] In reviewing the City’s Design Reviews Ms. Gruetzner questioned why it consistently and  
repeatedly identified concerns that were suddenly approved. She added there appear to be many  
inconsistencies about how the bylaws and the relaxations were considered.  
M. and J. Jesson  
[81] While Mr. and Mrs. Jesson understand the creativity that goes into development with a  
difficult lot configuration and multiple neighbours, they do not support the development along the  
western lot line. They believe a zero-lot line development would only be appropriate if the  
neighbour to the west agrees to a private easement agreement.  
B. and D. Keating  
[82] Mr. and Mrs. Keating have several concerns regarding the proposed developments on 66  
New Street SE. They will be directly impacted as they live west of the proposed development.  
Firstly, the plans submitted for the proposed development approval process appear to be  
inaccurate. There is no roof line shown over the carport on the neighbouring 64 New Street home.  
This structural support of the home has been omitted, and the DA was given incorrect information  
on which to base its decision.  
[83] The new home development is over-height by about four feet. Because of its minimal  
setback from the street, it will be incompatible with the street scape. Any new development should  
conform to the existing standards and current guidelines and regulations set by the City.  
D. Kelly  
[84] Mr. Kelly’s home is across the street and a short distance west of the proposed  
development. The proposed development will have a negative impact on him and the neighbours  
for the following reasons:  
Excessive height will create an imposing presence, which will dominate the streetscape.  
119-186-M01-22  
Page 26 of 89