The development appeals board heard from three property owners recently who wanted to pursue building projects that contravened the zoning bylaw, and after reviewing the requests, the board approved two and denied one.
The board met on May 17 and heard from Kelly Doyle at 1148 Hochelaga Street West, Greg Cunningham at 1 Flax Road and Robert (Victor) Salzsauler at 206 Elsom Street.
After reviewing the variance requests, the board submitted a report with its decisions to city council, which received and filed the document during its June 13 regular meeting.
1148 Hochelaga Street West
Doyle wants to build a detached garage 308 square feet in size, which would exceed the maximum allowable principal dwelling and accessory building site coverage prescribed under the zoning bylaw, the report said.
The bylaw states that the site coverage cannot be greater than 40 per cent to prevent overbuilding in low-density areas and protect rear-yard amenity space; the detached garage would make coverage 43 per cent.
The existing residence is 1,152 square feet and has front and rear decks, each 20 square feet in size. Doyle said he planned to remove the rear deck to maintain the required distance of one metre from the detached garage to the house.
After reviewing the situation, the appeals board granted Doyle’s variance request for three reasons:
- It would not be a special privilege since the city has granted five similar variances for properties in the R1 district
- It would not be a relaxation of the zoning bylaw since the homeowner planned to remove the rear yard deck for more space, while the detached garage would enhance the property
- It would not injuriously affect the neighbourhood since there were no objections from area property owners
1 Flax Road
Cunningham wants to build a fence six feet in height, which exceeds the maximum allowable height of 3.3 feet under the zoning bylaw, the report said.
The board approved a request from this same homeowner for a front-yard fence in 2019, the document continued. However, a neighbouring property owner appealed the decision to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board, which overturned the appeals board’s decision.
Cunningham told the board he wants to construct a larger fence for privacy, the safety of his children and for greater curb appeal. He noted that he spoke to area neighbours and several were in favour.
He also said that this appeal is different from the one in 2019 since he brought evidence to support his request this time and is willing to work with city hall to keep his corner lot safe.
After reviewing the situation, the appeals board denied the request for three reasons:
- It would be a special privilege since the board had concerns about the neighbourhood aesthetics and safety
- It would be a relaxation of the zoning bylaw because, even though the fence would enhance the property’s curb appeal, it would not enhance the neighbourhood
- It would injuriously affect adjacent properties since two neighbours objected to the project
206 Elsom Street
Salzsauler wants to demolish an existing detached garage and shed and construct a new detached garage of 576 square feet and a covered deck that extends six feet from the front of the house, the report said. This would make the combined accessory building size 972 square feet, which is contrary to the 900 square feet in the zoning bylaw.
This would also make the front-yard setback 16.4 feet, contrary to the 24.6 feet in the zoning bylaw.
“… the appellant advised the board that the garage would only exceed the accessory building size restriction by 72 square feet, and this difference should be unnoticeable,” the report continued.
After reviewing the situation, the board approved the variance request because:
- It would not be a special privilege since Salzsauler’s lot is at the end of a cul-de-sac and has only one adjacent property, while other R1-district properties have been given similar variances
- It would not be against the bylaw since the location is unique, the neighbourhood aesthetics would be protected, and the proposed accessory building would remain secondary to the home
- It would not injuriously affect the area since no neighbours were against it
The next regular council meeting is Monday, June 27.
