Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-16 - FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 2016 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:17 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider one application 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 recommendations which will be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decisions. 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 recommendation will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, August 29, 2016 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 2016-004 Applicants: Laurie, Robert and Lynn Chandler Property Location: 23 Woodsmere Drive Legal Description: Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-295, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-15333 Appearances: In Support: L. Chandler T. Coyne Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a wood fence having a height of 2.4m (7.874’) located 0.28m (2.034’) from the lot line abutting Woodsmere Drive rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 9, 2016, advising the property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with special use provision 246U and special regulation provision 273R in the City’s Zoning By-law. Despite the commercial zoning, all properties on Woodsmere Drive are street townhouse dwellings that are permitted by special use provision 246U. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 630.5.1.c(iii) of the City of Kitchener Fence By- law to legalize an existing fence 2.44M in height located 0.28 metres from the side lot line abutting a street rather than the required 4.5 metre setback. Upon receiving a scaled plan, the fence was found to be located 0.45 metres from the side lot line instead of 0.28 metres that was indicated on the original application. This distance was measured and confirmed during the site inspection on July 21st 2016. Based on the above, staff recommends that the variance be amended to reflect a 0.45 metres setback from the side lot line. The intent of the minimum 4.5 metre setback from an exterior side lot line for fences 2.44 metres in height is to provide an adequate buffer space between pedestrians and tall fences. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 8 - Submission No.: 1.FN 2016-004 (Cont’d) The buffer is necessary for pedestrian and vehicular safety, and for neighbourhood aesthetics. The City is committed to providing pedestrian-friendly streets that contribute to a pleasant walking environment and attractive streetscape. The requested 0.45 metre setback cannot be considered minor and does not provide sufficient buffering between the pedestrian walkway and the fence, and thus does not maintain the intent of the By-law. For this reason, Planning Staff cannot support the requested variance. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. L. Chandler and Mr. T. Coyne were in attendance in support of the subject application. Ms. Chandler addressed the Committee in opposition to the staff recommendation to refuse the variance for their fence. She indicated when the fence was built they were unaware of the Fence By-law and constructed a fence similar to their neighbour to the rear and other fences in the neighbourhood. She stated she had a list of 38 other properties in the general area with similar fences to the one constructed on their property. She was recently advised of the fence amnesty program undertaken by the City a number of years ago, which they did not participate in because the fence was not built at that time. Mr. Coyne advised the fence was built with aesthetics in mind; he noted he is a home builder/carpenter in trade and built the fence himself. The Chair noted the fence to the rear of the property is setback considerably further from the street in comparison to the fence on the subject property. Ms. Chandler advised that the builder, without consulting them, planted a pine tree in their rear yard which caused them to construct their fence in its current location. She noted they installed the fence in its current location for the safety of their children, to help contain their pets and assist with some of the challenges with their neighbours. She indicated she was not opposed to installing landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk to improve the fences’ aesthetics. The Chair noted the requirements in the Fence By-law are intended for safety and aesthetics and having an 8’ high fence that close to the property line is a significant variation from the By- law. Questions were raised regarding the staff recommendation; Ms. J. von Westerholt advised staff have taken a consistent position with regards to corner lot fences. The Fence By-law is clear; the higher the fence the further away it is required to be from the property line. She noted in 2008 there was a Corner Lot Fence Amnesty Program, where hundreds of property owners sought variances for their corner lot fence. She noted the applicants did not pursue an approval at that time. She indicated since the conclusion of the amnesty period, property owners have been advised that they need to lower or relocate their fence. She further advised that she could not speak to whether there was a safety concern with the fence on the subject property. In response to questions, Mr. Coyne advised that the fence was installed in 2013. He noted any changes to the location of the fence would be a significant expense. He stated if he was required to remove the fence he likely would not be able to afford to replace it immediately. He stated that although he builds homes for a living, he was not aware of the By-law and did not consult with the City prior to constructing the fence. He further advised that the current location of the fence does not impede the visibility/safety on the street. A motion was brought forward by Mr. B. McColl to approve the subject fence having a height of 6 feet rather than the requested height of 8 feet with a condition that the applicant submit and receive approval of a landscape plan from the City’s Director of Planning. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Laurie, Robert and Lynn Chandler requesting permission to legalize a wood fence having a height of 1.828m (6’) located 0.45m (1.476’) from the lot line abutting Woodsmere Drive rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’), on Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-295, being BE APPROVED, Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-15333, 23 Woodsmere Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 9 - Submission No.: 1.FN 2016-004 (Cont’d) 1. That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Plan from the City’s Director of Planning. 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 10:36 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of August, 2016. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment