Secondary suite appeal upheld despite Lakes Estates residents’ concerns

By Melissa Crispin-Piche Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Strathmore Lakes Estates residents say they are disappointed after an appeal challenging a secondary suite in their R1 neighbourhood failed to overturn the Town of Strathmore’s approval.

The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board released its decision Sept. 3 following an Aug. 20 hearing into Development Permit D26-083 for 52 Lakes Estates Circle. The appeal was filed by James (Jim) and Cathy Goertz.

The board allowed the appeal in part but ultimately upheld the town’s approval of the secondary suite with an additional condition addressing drainage and construction concerns.

The property is zoned R1 – Single Detached Residential District. Under Strathmore’s Land Use Bylaw, secondary suites are classified as a discretionary use within that district. The bylaw allows one secondary suite with a principal dwelling and requires an additional on-site parking stall. 

According to the town’s development report, the house was built in 2025 and the home and developed basement passed inspection that September. 

Development Services later received complaints on May 20, June 2 and June 15 of this year, alleging a secondary suite was being constructed without permits.

A safety codes officer conducted a site visit in June, and a stop order was issued June 16. The applicant submitted a development permit application June 10 to bring the project into compliance. The town approved the application July 7.  

The town maintained the proposal complied with the Land Use Bylaw and Municipal Development Plan and would not adversely affect neighbouring properties or change the established character of the neighbourhood. The property has a three-car garage and three parking pads. 

Residents disagreed.

Jim Goertz, representing the appellants at the hearing, raised concerns about neighbourhood character and density as well as the permitting process. He said Strathmore Lakes Estates was chosen by residents because it was a quiet community and people specifically looked for an R1 neighbourhood.

Following the board’s decision, Goertz said residents remain frustrated.

“The recent appeal decision to allow multi-family homes in Strathmore’s R1 neighborhoods is a massive disappointment,” Goertz said in a statement. “What is the point of R1 zoning if it no longer protects single-family communities?”

He was also critical of how the permitting issue was handled. 

“Even worse, the Town of Strathmore has rewarded a contractor who built without proper permits by retroactively approving their secondary suites,” Goertz said. “The message this sends is loud and clear: developers can ignore bylaws, skip the permit process, and face no consequences.”

During the hearing, Goertz also questioned whether construction could begin without permits and asked the town to confirm the suite complied with its requirements. He ultimately requested the development permit be denied.

Other residents raised concerns about parking, increased traffic, snow removal, drainage, property values and the possibility the decision could lead to additional secondary suites in the neighbourhood.

The board considered those concerns but found there was not enough evidence to overturn the development permit under the Town’s Land Use Bylaw and the Municipal Government Act. The decision noted secondary suites have been permitted as a discretionary use in low-density areas of Strathmore since council adopted amendments to the Land Use Bylaw in June 2020.

The board also acknowledged concerns about how construction and the permitting process were handled, stating the process “was not ideal,” but that it had to give limited weight to those circumstances when deciding whether the development itself should be permitted.

One concern did result in a change.

The board added a condition requiring the builder to provide verification from an independent, external qualified professional engineer that proper drainage and a frost wall are in place below the basement footing or that the issue can be remedied before the development permit is issued and before the building permit stage. With that condition added, Development Permit D26-083 was otherwise upheld.

Goertz said residents believe the decision has broader implications for R1 neighbourhoods. 

“Our neighbourhood is rightfully furious,” he said. “We paid high property taxes and bought into an R1 zone for a reason. We expect competent oversight from our local government, not a system that rewards rule-breaking at the expense of residents and disregard for the existing building bylaws that are in place.”