Granted. Granted. Granted.
That’s the message the Development Appeals Board gave to three Moose Jaw property owners on March 17 after they asked for permission to undertake projects that contravene the zoning bylaw. With the approvals, R. Victor Salzsauler at 1029 Oxford Street East, Allan Graas at 159 and 163 Fairford Street East and 224-Second Avenue Northeast, and Pat Petrisor of 1069 James Street can now proceed with their initiatives.
A report about the board’s decisions was presented during city council’s April 13 regular meeting. Council voted unanimously to receive and file the document.
1029 Oxford Street East
Salzsauler asked for permission to construct a secondary suite that was 91 square metres (980 square feet) in size, contrary to the maximum size of 65 square metres (700 square feet) in the zoning bylaw, the report said. The bylaw regulates the size of secondary suites to ensure they remain smaller than the principal dwelling.
Salzsauler said he purchased the lot and demolished an old house that was on it since he planned to build a new house with a secondary suite in the basement to rent to a young family. He also planned to take advantage of the five-year tax exemption program.
The board concluded that Salzsauler’s request would be granted for three reasons, including the variance request would not harm the neighbourhood aesthetics, while there would be sufficient off-street parking; the proposed secondary suite would not restrict airflow, sunlight or access to the rear yard; and the variance would not injuriously affect the neighbouring properties.
159 and 163 Fairford Street East and 224-Second Avenue Northeast
Graas wanted to permission to construct an apartment building with a proposed rear yard setback of 9.1 metres (30 feet), contrary to the 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) prescribed in the zoning bylaw, the report said.
The property is composed of six vacant lots and measures 150 feet by 125 feet. It is zoned as C2 high-density commercial district; this district prescribes a rear setback of 4.5 metres for residential uses on corner properties, the report continued.
The proposed apartment would provide a rear yard setback of 4.27 metres (14 feet) on the main floor level. The upper levels would overhang this open area by 0.914 metres (three feet) from the rear property line.
The appeals board granted the variance request for three reasons, including the variance would not deter from neighbourhood aesthetics and the main floor’s setback would be .76 feet less than the bylaw requires; the airflow, sunlight and access would not be affected due to the location of the proposed building; and the variance would not injuriously affect nearby properties but could enhance the aesthetics.
1069 James Street
Petrisor wanted to construct a detached garage with a proposed floor area of 96.6 square metres (1,040 square feet), contrary to the 83.6 square metres (900 square feet) in the zoning bylaw, along with a proposed height of 4.7 metres (15.5 feet), contrary to the 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) in the bylaw.
The property is a single lot that is 60 feet by 120 feet in size and is zoned R1 large lot low-density residential district, the report said. The height restriction for accessory buildings is determined by the height of the principal building. In this situation, the height and floor area of the house is greater than the proposed detached garage.
Petrisor told the appeals board he wants bigger garage for his work truck, which he uses for his business Snap On Tools. Only one neighbour had a problem with the height of the garage, while he has few customers visit his house to conduct business.
After analyzing the situation, the board granted the variance for similar reasons as the previous two appeals.
The next regular council meeting is Monday, April 27.
