On Tuesday evening an appeal hearing of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) was held to address The City's Development Authority's decision about the conditional approval of a development permit for a supportive housing limited unit in the Reunion neighbourhood.

The applicant who applied for the permit was Bright Adelegan, the Executive Director of Ever Bright Complex Needs Support Services Inc. Two separate appeals were filed, one was an individual appeal by Airdronian Greg Albridge, and the other was a group appeal led by John Maxner. Catherine Ziegler, a resident of Rocky View County, who had previously attended a similar appeal for a supportive housing application by Adelegan in Balzac also attended and spoke at the appeal hearing. 

While there were numerous appeals for the development permit, there were also several letters submitted to the SDAB in support of the application being granted, several citing the fact that because Airdrie lacks supportive housing, such an initiative should be welcomed and fostered.

At the outset of the hearing, Airdrie city Councillor Candice Kolson, Chair of the SDAB,  addressed the role of the board as well as what it can and cannot do with regard to some of the information that was submitted by the appealing parties. Kolson underlined that the board was not a legislative or policymaking body. 

"It is not an advisory or advocacy body. The Board does not introduce or seek out evidence, though it does ask questions it makes decisions based on the submissions of the parties," Councillor Kolson said.

She added that the scope of the board's decision-making is limited and must be viewed within the purview it is tasked with.

"The board's task is to exercise its discretion to approve or deny the permit based on the merits of the application. The Board considers the land use bylaw - the applicable legislation, plans and policies and relevant planning considerations."

Considerations can include things like the appropriateness of the location and parcel for the permit, the potential impact on other properties, site suitability, transportation routes, population density, parking, traffic and nearby amenities like schools, grocery stores and green spaces.

She noted that much of the contents of the appeals including personal characteristics of potential residents in the supportive home, the character of the applicant, the applicant's business license, certain certifications and accreditation were out of the scope of jurisdiction of the board.

"When you speak today - please take care and help us to understand of these issues the relevance of these issues to the board's task here tonight. The board would very much like to fully understand the appellants planning concerns, so that it may render a properly informed decision," Councillor Kolson underlined. 

Samina Tuli a planner with the City of Airdrie presented background on the application and a summary of the essence of the appeals to the permit, which was an application for a Change of Use – Dwelling, Single Detached to Supportive Housing, Limited. 

According to the City of Airdrie's website, supportive housing limited is defined as:

"Accommodation integrated within residential areas, offering on-site professional care and supervision. Services provided may include regular housekeeping, nursing care, personal care, health and wellness support, and recreational activities.
This category includes group homes and congregate care facilities, but excludes institutions such as extended medical treatment centers or detention and correctional facilities."

City documents state that in February 2023, the applicant submitted a development permit application for a proposed Supportive Housing, Limited at 47 Reunion Grove NW.

"The applicant intends to have three individuals living in the home with two full-time support staff on-site to support the individuals during the day and night. The submitted site and floor plans indicate no exterior or interior changes are proposed with this change of use application."

The application was approved on April 11.

"The appellants are strongly opposed to ‘Ever Bright Complex Needs Support Services Inc.’ operating their program at this location. Collectively, the appellants do not consider 47 Reunion Grove NW as an appropriate location for the proposed use," Tuli stated. 

She added that appellants were concerned about the users of the proposed facility, as well as the safety, and security of the neighbourhood. However, there were other numerous concerns including the lack of proximity to certain facilities, the appellants' view that there was a failure by The City to properly notify residents, as well a failure of the applicant to post the notice of decision on the property in question.

"The appellants are concerned that if the development permit has been issued, the subject property in Reunion Grove can be used however Ever Bright Complex Needs Support Services Inc. sees fit. It could potentially go from special needs individuals to dangerous offenders. There is no oversight or requirement from the City of Airdrie to follow up," Tuli said.

The City also reiterates this on its website by stating that:

"The City has limited control over dictating who can occupy a specific ‘use’ on a property. The Land Use Bylaw regulates the ‘use’ and not the ‘user’. Further, the City can only advise a prospective supportive housing operator to obtain the necessary licences and approvals required from the Provincial Government to operate their business."

Operators of supportive housing units or accommodations have to comply with various provincial legislation, though it is the province that has the authority and ability to investigate complaints of non-compliance with set laws and regulations, and not municipalities. 

However, Tuli did underline that there had been a contravention during the process with regard to the notice of the decision signage and that The City had received multiple complaints from the neighbourhood's residents.

"We received multiple complaints that the applicant did not post notice of decision signage on the property and started operations before the development permit issuance. After identifying the contravention, a warning notice (dated April 28, 2023) had been issued to ensure the poster has been posted on the subject property," she said.

The warning letter also addressed the need to stop all activities related to the permit application as residents had complained that it seemed to the organization was already operating prior to the conclusion of the permit process. Tuli said that on April 29, the applicant confirmed that the notice was posted and all the operations were stopped.

Councillor Kolson asked for clarification if City Bylaw officers had been sent to the property to ascertain whether support services were being offered in any capacity prior to the development permit process completing and whether they had indeed ceased. Tuli answered that after a warning was sent to the applicant, a follow-up email exchange with the applicant to The City stated that no operations were ongoing.

The first appellant to speak was Greg Albridge who spoke very briefly as he had also provided a written submission. One of Albridge's concerns echoed similar concerns that residents of Big Spring had several months ago, at an appeal hearing for a supportive housing limited residence in their neighbourhood. 

"In reviewing other application appeals, it appears that almost every time an issue with Ever Bright is raised, the company simply removes references to the item in question from its website. It seems highly suspicious for the company to remove items that disclose information on its operations when these disclosures are challenged. It's probable that the operations themselves are not changed, only the presentation to the public. What are they trying to hide?" Albridge wrote in his appeal.

Previously, in the September 2021 appeal hearing, Adelegan, in his rebuttal, stated that it is within the purview of a business to change a website's wording as they see fit.

Rocky View resident Catherine Ziegler spoke at length to the board and also alleged that the home that Ever Bright was operating in Balzac had also commenced operations well before the permit process was finished. She also challenged the board on the issue of the 'use' vs 'the user' scope.

"My point is that if it's beyond the scope of the SDAB, then you shouldn't be permitting it because it is the essence of the application. You can't split use and user here, it doesn't work," Ziegler said.

Ziegler also pointed out that because the Supportive Living Accommodation Licensing Act is only applied to supportive living accommodation provided by an operator where the supportive living accommodation is provided to four or more adults who are not related to the operator, provincial oversight is limited. Supportive homes that have less than four individuals do not need to seek a license under this Act. 

"If this could be turned back to your council, who would say, 'no, we're not going to have any more of these little group homes under four - they all have to be four so they meet the standard', then I think you would have taken a great step forward."

Airdrie resident John Maxner who led the charge in also representing other individuals in the appeal prepared a 43 slide presentation for the hearing. Maxner argued that when it came to the warning issued to the applicant, more should have been done.

"The SDAB has authority and the jurisdiction under item 10 of the Municipal Government Act: Despite that the development authority has issued an acknowledgment under subsection (5) or (7), in the course of reviewing the application, the development authority may request additional information or documentation from the applicant that the development authority considers necessary to review the application," Maxner suggested.

The Board did not ask Maxner any follow-up questions and proceeded to ask Adelegan for his response. Adelegan did not attend the hearing in person, but instead appeared via Microsoft Teams as he stated he was out of the country. He hit back at allegations that his organization did not possess the proper accreditation, stating that he provided documents showing that Ever Bright is accredited through the Alberta Council of Disability Services (ACDS).

According to a written statement from ACDS to Discover Airdrie from May 1, 2023, Ever Bright obtained a Level 1 New Services Accreditation in May 2021. This will expire in May 2024.

"ACDS provides accreditation to Community Disability Service Providers who provide services to adults under the Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD) program administered by Seniors, Community & Social Services," a spokesperson wrote. "We provide no accreditation for services under Children’s Services or Health.  Accreditation by the ACDS Creating Excellence Together (CET) standards Level 1 or by an equivalent accrediting body is a requirement for organizations contracted to provide PDD services in Alberta."

ACDS also stated that accreditation does not serve to allow or disallow or organization to provide any particular service at any particular location. 

"That would be a function of licensing and/or funding requirements.  Accreditation only indicates that a program met quality standards based on the time of the accreditation for the programs and services for which they applied for accreditation.  Accreditation is not a monitoring or regulatory function."

The board did ask Adelegan about the day-to-day operations of the supportive housing unit, and he explained there would be three individuals in the home, two of whom are autistic, with two staff members who would be working in shifts.

Councillor Kolson underlined that the Board would not make a decision at the end of the meeting.

"The board must give a decision in writing within 15 days of the conclusion of this hearing."

Send your news tips, story ideas, pictures, and videos to news@discoverairdrie.com