Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-02-19 - FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Cybalski, A. Lise and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Ms. M. Drake, Planner, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist, Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding a variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. The Committee will not make a decision on this application 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 4, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS Submission No.: 1. FN 2013-001 Applicants: Brian and Maxcena Penney Property Location: 337 Featherstone Crescent Legal Description: Lot 33, Registered Plan 58M-427 Appearances: In Support: M. Penney S. Head Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.8m (6’) high wooden privacy fence having a setback from an exterior side lot line abutting Featherstone Crescent of 0.2m (0.66’) rather than the required 0.91m (3’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 11, 2013, advising that the subject property is located at the north-east corner of Featherstone Crescent and Featherstone Street. The property contains a single family dwelling. The zoning is Residential Four (R-4) with special provision 405R and the Official Plan designation is Low Rise Residential. The applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.8 metre (6 ft) high wooden privacy fence having a setback from an exterior side lot line abutting Featherstone Crescent of 0.2 metre (0.66 ft) rather than the required 0.91 metre (3 ft). In considering the requested variance to the Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The intent of the 4.52 metre setback from exterior side lot line for fences between 0.9 and 1.8 metres in height is to provide an adequate buffer between public space and taller fences. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 19, 2013 2 Submission No.: FN 2013-001 (Cont’d) 1. buffer is required for aesthetic purposes in order that a tall fence does not create a wall effect by being located too close to, or adjacent to, a sidewalk or other public space. The proposed variance does not meet the intent of the Fence By-law. In addition, the setback would normally provide an area for landscaping, such as shrubs or plants, in order to soften the look of the fence. However, in this case there is insufficient area between the fence and the lot line to provide adequate landscaping (see above photo). Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the variance is not minor. As a result of the above comments, staff do not consider the variance to be appropriate for the development of the property or the surrounding streetscape. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. A. Head advised that the applicants had looked to other examples in the surrounding area in constructing their fence, which was erected for reasons of privacy. Mr. Head referred to photographs submitted with the application, which denote a substantial downward sloping grade from the sidewalk toward the house. He stated that prior to the fence being built there was lack of privacy and security as persons standing on the sidewalk could see into the yard and side windows of the home and the applicants had experienced incidents of theft of property from their rear yard. The applicants subsequently received notice from the City that the fence as constructed was not in compliance with the City’s Fence By-law. Mr. Head advised that By-law Enforcement staff suggested at that time that the fence should be cut down to 3’ which would not provide the desired privacy or security, and that it should be moved back 5’ which would result in loss of use of a large portion of their back yard. Subsequently, it was suggested that an application be made to the Committee of Adjustment to request relief and it was noted that the applicants had obtained approximately 30 letters signed by neighbouring property owners in support of the fence. Mr. Head pointed out that there are numerous fences in the neighbourhood that similarly do not comply and in particular, noted a Regional or City owned property that contains a walled fence that immediately abuts a sidewalk which he suggested creates issues of visibility for motorists / pedestrians in the area of Huron Road. Mr. Head referred to the concerns outlined by staff in their report concerning inability to provide landscaping along the fence within the 18” of grass between the fence and sidewalk. He advised that they have consulted with an experienced landscaper who has advised that there are types of plantings, such as climbing ivy, which could be used to soften the look of the fence. He stated that the applicants are willing to provide and maintain appropriate landscaping, as well as reduce the overall height of the fence by approximately 6” through removal of lattice. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the main concern of staff with any fencing abutting the streetscape is one of aesthetics, noting that the intent is to avoid a walled streetscape. She acknowledged that there are no related traffic concerns with the subject fence and stated that if there is opportunity for landscaping to soften its effect to the streetscape this would help in addressing their concerns. She added that the walled fence referred to earlier by Mr. Head is permitted to address noise attenuation but acknowledged that it also is not an aesthetically pleasing structure. Mr. D. Cybalski commented that this property is unique in respect to its grading and the lack of privacy it creates for the living space, and this should be taken into consideration. Mr. A. Lise read a prepared statement outlining his reasons in support of the application, commenting in part that similar setback reductions are common throughout the City and there are no traffic / safety related issues concerning the subject fence, which is supported by neighbouring property owners and for which the applicant is willing to provide landscaping to address the issue of aesthetics raised by staff. Mr. B. McColl agreed that many similar occurrences are evident across the City and liked the approach suggested by the property owner in reducing the height of the fence and applying appropriate landscaping to soften its impact to the street view. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 19, 2013 3 Submission No.: FN 2013-001 (Cont’d) 1. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Brian & Maxcena Penney requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.8m (6’) high wooden privacy fence having a setback from an exterior side lot line abutting Featherstone Crescent of 0.2m (0.66’) rather than the required 0.91m (3’), on Lot 33, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 58M-427, 337 Featherstone Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner(s) shall reduce the overall height of the existing fence by 15.24cm (6”) and shall install appropriate landscaping along the length of the fence abutting Featherstone Crescent, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, by no later than June 30, 2013. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance approved in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of 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 10:18 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of February, 2013. Janet Billett Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment