Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-02-15 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. Cybalski and A. Lise OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. A. Buitenhuis, Student Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary- Treasurer, Ms. M. Burleanu, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:06 a. m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications but rather will make a recommendation which will be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chair explained that the Committee's decisions with respect to fence variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, March 7, 2010, at 7:00 p. m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: FN 2011-001 Applicant: Stephen & Susan Perrin Property Location: 29 Perkell Place Legal Description: Lot 67, Plan 841 Appearances: In Support: S. & S. Perrin Contra: M. Horton B. Tupman Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing wooden privacy fence located in the front yard, having a height of 1.1m (3.6') to 1.7m (5.57') rather than the permitted height of 0.9m (2.95'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 30, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 29 Perkell Place, which is located south of Krug Street and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By- I aw. The applicant is requesting relief from the City's Fence By-law, Section 630.4.1 (a) to exceed the maximum height of a fence in the front yard from 0.91 metres to 1.7 metres for the first segment of fence adjacent to the front of the dwelling stepped to 1.1 metres in height for the segment of the fence closest to the front yard property line. In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The intent of Section 630.4.1 (a) is to prevent the creation of visual obstacles that may hinder the movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Section 630.3.1 of the City of Kitchener fence COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Submission No.: FN 2011-001 (Cont' FEBRUARY 15, 2011 By-law prohibits the erection of any visual barrier that may obscure clear visibility based on Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT). Although the subject stepped fence height exceeds the height requirements of the Fence By- law, the fence does not interfere with the Driveway Visibility Triangles for the adjacent property and therefore there would be no impact to the adjacent landowner in regard to pedestrian or vehicular movement. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mrs. Perrin reviewed the application noting that the fence varies in height, with the height decreasing from 6' to 4' as it gets closer to the street. Further the fence does not encroach into the neighbour's driveway visibility triangle. She advised that they erected the fence for aesthetic reasons and to enhance their landscaping. Mr. M. Horton addressed the Committee on behalf of the abutting neighbour who was also in attendance. He noted the staff report which states that the fence has no impact on the adjacent land owner; however, there is an impact on the neighbour. Mr. Horton then provided the Committee members with photographs of the fence from the neighbour's property. Mr. Horton advised that, as shown in photograph no. 1, this fence extends the blind spot a further 18' up the driveway. Photograph no. 2 is a view of other properties on the street and Mr. Horton stated that there are no other front yard fences on the street; therefore, the fence is not compatible with the neighbourhood. Mr. Horton next referred to photograph no. 3 which shows the neighbour's driveway and the slope of driveway that starts at approximately the beginning of the middle fence panel, advising that the 2 fence panels closest to the street block the neighbour's visibility of on-coming traffic. Mr. Horton then explained that he reviewed the Committee's Fence Variance minutes from 2005 to the present and the committee has not considered an application for a fence of this nature; suggesting that to approve this application will set a precedent. He then referred to photographs no. 4 and 5 to show that the fence is taller than the measurements provided in the application. He then noted that the neighbour's driveway is quite steep and as the snow melts and water turns to ice, the fence does not provide an adequate opportunity to view pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Mr. Horton then continued by reviewing the remaining photographs. With respect to the height of the fence, Ms. Von Westerholt advised that the measurements provided in the Sign By-law are to the top of the fence posts and not the boards. The Chair questioned the applicants as to whether the section of the fence closest to the street is critical. Mrs. Perrin responded that the City's by-laws will permit a 3' high fence in this location, but will also allow an 8' high hedge behind it. Mr. Horton stated that the safety concern is most critical; as the car will be on the slope before the driver can see on-coming traffic. Respecting the fence heights, Mrs. Perrin advised that they will reduce the heights of the fence panels to the measurements in the application. The Chair then questioned whether Mr. & Mrs. Perrin would agree to amend their application and alter their fence to have heights of 5', 4' and 3' to the top of the posts and Mrs. Perrin agreed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3 FEBRUARY 15, 2011 1. Submission No.: FN 2011-001 (Cont'dl Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Stephen & Susan Perrin requesting permission to alter an existing wooden privacy fence located in the front yard, such that the first section of the fence, starting at the front wall of the house, will have a height of 1.524 m (5') to the top of the post plus a fence post cap, the middle section to the fence will have a height of 1.21 m (4') to the top of the post plus a fence post cap and the third portion of the fence closest to the street, will have a height of .9144 m (3') to the top of the post plus a fence post cap, rather than the permitted height of 0.9 m (2.95'), on Lot 67, Plan 841, 29 Perkell Place, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a. m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of February, 2011. Dianne Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment