Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-13 - FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 13, 2016 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, A. Head and B. McColl, Ms. J. Meader and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Mr. T. Brubacher, Committee Administrator; Ms. D. Saunderson, 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 one application a regarding 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 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, January 30, 2017 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 2016-008 Applicant: Tony and Ann-Louise Kormos Property Location: 929 Pioneer Grove Court Legal Description: Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-519 Appearances: In Support: T. and A. Kormos Contra: S. Higgins Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to extend the height of an existing fence on the westerly side lot line having a height of 3.658m rather than the permitted maximum height of 2.44m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 6, 2016, advising the subject property located at 929 Pioneer Grove Court is zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) in the Zoning By-law and is used as a single-detached dwelling. The property owner is proposing to alter a portion of an existing fence to increase the height. The owner is requesting relief from Section 630.4.1 (b) of the City of Kitchener Fence By-law to allow a fence with a height of 3.65 metres rather than the maximum permitted height of 2.44 metres. The intended purpose of the increase in fence height is to quell issues with smoke billowing over the current fence from the neighbouring outdoor kitchen. In considering the requested variance to the Fence By-law, Planning staff offers the following comments. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Fence By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the height maximum of 2.44 metres is to ensure that a fence does not create an exceedingly high wall effect and negatively impact the aesthetics of the neighbouring rear yard. In this situation, the neighbouring property already contains a large wall along the subject portion of the property line in the form of an outdoor kitchen structure. Therefore the proposed variance meets the intent of the By-law because the increased fence height would not establish a new wall effect as it already exists along the property line. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 13, 2016 - 18 - 1. Submission No.: FN 2016-008 (Cont’d) The proposed variance can be considered minor and appropriate for the following reasons. The proposed fence height can be considered minor because it is proposed for only a small portion (7.92 metres) of the total fence perimeter (75.70 metres) located in the rear and side yards of the subject property. The remainder of the fence will continue to be below 2.44 metres in height and will be compliant with the By-law. In addition, as the fence is located in the rear yard it will not affect the aesthetics of the streetscape because it is not visible from the street. The proposed fence height can be considered appropriate because the fence is located between accessory structures on both sides of the property that are comparable in height. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance to the fence can be considered minor and meets the general intent of the Fence By-law and is appropriate for the lot and surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated November 23, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. T. and Ms. A. Kormos were in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. Kormos advised smoke from a large outdoor kitchen structure located in the rear yard of the neighbouring property causes significant congestion in the outdoor sitting area of her property. She indicated the proposed fence height increase is an attempt to mitigate excessive smoke from the neighbour’s outdoor kitchen into their yard, so it may improve the use of their amenity space Mr. S. Higgins addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He indicated he owns the neighbouring property with the outdoor kitchen in question, adding he obtained the necessary permits for the structure. He indicated he is not opposed to the applicant’s request to increase the height of the fence to assist with issues raised with the outdoor kitchen; however, he expressed concerns that the proposed height increase to the fence may decrease the enjoyment of his outdoor amenity space. He circulated a possible alternative recommendation, which included three conditions as follows: the fence height of 3.65m shall only be permitted to extend a maximum of 6.096m (20’) in length with appropriate stepping of the fence to the maximum height as shown in the proposed illustration included in the staff report; the area associated with the additional fence height to be constructed with a translucent material from the existing height of 2.44m to the permitted maximum height of 3.65m; and, that the design of the fence be in substantial compliance with the proposed illustration contained in the staff report, dated December 6, 2016, as shown in the circulation he provided this date. He further advised he is not opposed to the increased fence height; rather, he wished to ensure it does not reduce the enjoyment of his backyard. In response to questions, Mr. Higgins advised he did not require any variances for the construction of the kitchen structure located in his rear yard. Ms. Kormos advised they have no objections to the conditions proposed by the neighbouring property owner. She noted the proposed fence height increase is not intended to adversely impact the neighbouring property owner; rather, she wished to increase the use and enjoyment of their outdoor amenity space. She further advised the illustration in the staff report is consistent with the drawing circulated by the neighbour, which she hopes will solve the issues related to smoke from the outdoor kitchen. Mr. Higgins indicated while he had no objections to the proposed design, he would like conditions imposed that would provide specific requirements to the final design. He added if a more significant variance approval was granted, he would be willing to work with the applicants to find a suitable design that would be amenable to both their interests. Clarification was requested regarding proposed Condition 1 as circulated by Mr. Higgins related to the centre panel and the proposed length of that panel. The Committee agreed the length of the centre panel, having a height of 3.65m, should have a maximum length of 7.62m to allow the applicant and staff an opportunity to finalize the design of the fence and ensure the panels could be securely anchored on top of the existing fence. Ms. J. Meader expressed concerns with Condition 3, noting it may conflict in its interpretation in relation to Condition 1. She proposed an amendment to Condition 1, to state the fence height of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 13, 2016 - 19 - 1. Submission No.: FN 2016-008 (Cont’d) 3.65m shall only be permitted to extend a maximum of 7.62m (25’) in length with appropriate stepping and opacity generally as shown in the proposed design included in the staff report. She added the proposed amendment to Condition 1 would remove the requirement of Condition 3 as circulated by the neighbouring property owner. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Tony and Ann-Louise Kormos requesting permission to extend the height of an existing fence on the westerly side lot line having a height of 3.658m rather than the permitted maximum height of 2.44m, on Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-519, 929 Pioneer Grove Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall ensure the fence height of 3.65m shall only be permitted to extend to a maximum of 7.62m in length with appropriate stepping and opacity generally as shown in the proposed design included in the staff report, dated December 6, 2016. 2. That the area associated with the additional fence height be constructed with a translucent material from the existing height of 2.44m to the permitted maximum height of 3.65m. 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 10:26 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 13th day of December, 2016. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment