The City of Airdrie’s Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) fielded complaints from Big Springs residents regarding a development permit for a supportive housing initiative in their neighbourhood on Sept. 20, during the appeal board’s latest meeting.
Sixteen appellants voiced concerns over the SDAB’s upcoming decision whether to approve a permit application for a supportive housing model submitted by Ever Bright Complex Needs Support Services.
According to the meeting’s staff report, the Alberta-based company seeks to provide “wrap-around” support solutions to youth and adults with complex needs, providing a unified approach to housing and support, according to its website.
“Every Bright plays a central role in the best service delivery approach for the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community,” read a statement on the website.
As part of its business model, Ever Bright provides 24-hour staffed living accommodations support to tenants who have been identified as having complex needs, including those who pose a “significant risk” to themselves, others, or property through engaging in “harmful behaviour.” The website went on to state these residents may require intensive services and may have a history of mental health challenges.
Samir Girgis, the registered owner of the property along Springs Cresent SE submitting the application, said Ever Bright reached out to him after they saw an advertisement for the tenancy of his residence on RentFaster.ca. Thereafter, the landlord met with the company and showed them the house, and signed a lease agreement.
“Ever Bright is a private business that, as far as I know, looks after children that need extra development,” Girgis said in an interview. “They have a lot of staff that could manage those children. They find these children and house them in rental houses. I’m not the only one.”
According to Girgis, there are 14 other homes in Airdrie that are being rented to provide support services for those in need and have been operating for “quite some time.”
“They look after [the home], pay me rent, and maintain the property, like a normal tenant,” he added.
He said since the company took over the lease of the home, he hasn’t heard any concerns from neighbouring residents about the supportive housing initiative – bar one complaint.
“My neighbour has my phone number, and he did bring one concern to me about a month and a half ago and it’s been addressed,” Girgis said. “I haven’t heard anything since then and every time I visit the property, nobody’s complaining to me.”
The 16 appellants, who live close by the housing unit along Springs Crescent SE, submitted their appeals in writing to the City. Some voiced their opposition in person at the public hearing on Sept. 20.
Concerns voiced by appellants included the question of safety and security of the neighbourhood, given the high-risk nature of the tenants residing at the property.
Additionally, concerns were raised over increased vehicle traffic, noise and nuisances, and the potential effect the support residence might have on property values.
One appellant said they heard loud noises coming from the residence at night, disrupting their sleep.
“Screaming, crying, banging coming from the house at different times, but usually at night starting around 8 p.m.,” the complaint read. “I pay my taxes and should be entitled to a decent sleep at night so I can go to work in the morning.”
Another appellant stated there is concern among residents of the crescent that the tenants could engage in harmful behaviours.
“Ever Bright stated they help work through sexual behaviours, thoughts, and feelings. They also address other mental health challenges, addictions, and more,” read the appeal. “This is a large concern for families with young children like my own.
“There are many other families with small children on the street, and multiple day homes and daycares in the area making [the residence] an inappropriate location for such a facility.”
According to a letter submitted to SDAB by Bright Adelegan, executive director of Ever Bright, the residence will have two individuals living in the house with two support staff on-site to support the individuals during the day and night.
“There will be no external support coming to the site,” Adelegan’s letter read. “The two individuals living in the house do have day programs they attend in the community. The home is used as the other individuals in the same community... as their residence with support staff.”
When reached for additional comment, Adelegan said in a statement that Ever Bright is committed to providing an equitable and improved quality of life for people with disabilities.
“People with disability are humans like everyone else, they have been segregated for a long time and Ever Bright is advocating for them to live in the community like everyone else,” he said. “Disability does not reduce the value of our community, rather, it adds to our community as a community that accommodates and advocate for the less [privileged].
“Individuals with disabilities are people like you and me and they have the right to live wherever they chose to live. Ever Bright will continue to provide support and advocate for the less privileged individuals in our great community of Airdrie and surroundings.”
The house is currently operated as a foster home under federal jurisdiction, according to the staff report. Multiple landowners have submitted appeals to the board to this end.
Appellants also claimed Ever Bright had been operating at the address prior to the approval of the original development permit proposal. According to SDAB, the application was submitted on July 24 and was officially approved on Aug. 4.
Currently, Airdrie has a deficit of housing types to serve vulnerable members of the community. The City's land use bylaw includes a definition of supportive housing as a type of accommodation integrated with other residential land uses in a neighbourhood context. It is a residence that provides on-site professional care and supervision to its tenants. The definition includes group homes and congregate care facilities.
Following the meeting, SDAB has the option of either denying the appeal and upholding the Aug. 4 decision, granting an appeal and refusing the development permit, or tabling the appeal and requesting additional information.
As of press time, the SDAB declined to comment on its decision, as the hearing was still open as of Oct. 4. However, the SDAB clerk advised she anticipates a final decision by the board’s members later this week.
