Two projects contrary to city zoning bylaw approved by appeals board

The development appeals board has approved two requests from homeowners for variances to the municipality’s zoning bylaw, allowing those residents to construct a detached garage and oversized storage shed.

The board met on April 10 to hear requests from Corinne and Paul Hammer and Warren Brisbin about letting them proceed with their projects after city hall initially turned them down. The board approved both initiatives after listening to the arguments. It then submitted a report to the April 26 regular city council meeting, where council voted unanimously to receive and file the document.

Corinne and Paul Hammer

Corinne and Paul Hammer at 1539 Duffield Street West want to construct a detached garage with a proposed height of 5.4 metres (17.6 feet), contrary to the five metres (16.4 feet) allowed under the City of Moose Jaw’s zoning bylaw, the report said. The Hammers plan to use the proposed garage to work on a classic car. The appeals board granted the variance request because:

• Approving the appeal would not be a special privilege since similar variances have been granted to other parties;

• The project is only 1.2 feet higher than the zoning bylaw recommends, while the proposed building would be smaller than the principal dwelling (home), which is the main structure on the property. Also, the proposed garage would not affect the health, safety or welfare of adjacent properties;

• The board received no objections from neighbouring properties about the application.

Warren Brisbin

Warren Brisbin at 1434 Spadina Street wants to construct an addition to a detached garage that is 96.6 square metres (1,040 square feet) in size, contrary to the 83.6 square metres (900 square feet) in the zoning bylaw, the report said. Furthermore, the proposed addition would cover 42 per cent of the rear yard, contrary to the 35 per cent laid out in the zoning bylaw, while the principal dwelling and the accessory building would cover 44 per cent of the site, contrary to the 40 per cent as prescribed in the zoning bylaw.

Brisbin told the board that the proposed addition would fit well into the area and match neighbouring property developments, while he has received no complaints from people, the report continued.

The appeals board granted the variance request because:

• Approving the appeal would not be a special privilege since similar variances have been granted to other parties;

• The proposed development would not amount to a relaxation of the zoning bylaw or affect the health, safety or general welfare of adjacent properties. Furthermore, similar variances have been approved up for site coverage up to 49 per cent, while garage square footages up to 1,947 square feet have been approved in the past in the same zoning district;

• The board received no objections from neighbouring properties about the application.