Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-06-17 FENCOA\1997-06-17-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, W. Dahms, D. McKnight, S. Kay and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Morgan, Co-ordinator, Administration and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Zoning This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to Chapter 630 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on this application but rather will make a recommendation which will be forwarded to Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission No. F 1/97 - Milan Trbojevic, 53 Highland Road East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Lot 8, Registered Plan 315, 53 Highland Road East, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. M. Trbojevic 53 Highland Road East Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to erect a 1.68 m (5.5 ft.) high fence up to the lot line along Ruby Street rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.) high fence. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a 1.68 m (5.5 ft.) high fence set back 0.56 m (1.83 ft.) from the ruby Street property line rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) setback. The bylaw permits 0.91 m (2.99 ft.) high fencing in this location. Staff confirmed details regarding the height and setback of the fence with the applicant, the driveway for the applicant's property is accessed from Highland Rd. Recently, the applicant removed a portion of hedge abutting the rear lot line and the side lot line along Ruby street since it was difficult to maintain. The applicant intends to replace the hedge with fencing. The fencing will extend along ruby Street from the rear of the property towards Highland Rd. for a distance of approximately 21.95 m (72.ft.) adjacent to Ruby Street. the fencing will provide privacy by screening the property from the vehicular traffic along Ruby Street as well as providing a secured area for the applicant's children. The driveway for the neighbouring property addressed 20 Ruby Street is not abutting the rear lot line where the fencing is proposed, the fencing would not cause a visibility obstruction for the abutting COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JUNE 17, 1997 property owner entering or exiting their property from Ruby Street, thereby meeting the intent of the bylaw, there have been no complaints in the past regarding the hedge therefore it should not be more obstructive than the hedge. 1. Submission No. F 1/97 - Milan Trboievic - cont'd Only the portion of fencing along the rear lot line which is within 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) from the Ruby Street property line requires variance approval, the fencing will be set back approximately 2.13 m (7 ft.) from the rear property line. this area contains maintenance free stones. The Department of Planning & Development recommends approval of the application, as amended. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concerns regarding the proposed fence; however, they noted that the existing hedge creates a sight restriction for motorists on Ruby Street. They recommended that the property owner undertake the necessary work in order for the hedge to comply with By-law 97-23. The Committee questioned whether the hedge had been removed, where the fence is to be located, and the applicant advised that it has been removed. When questioned about how tall the hedge was, Mr. T advised that it had been over 6 ft. high and that he proposes to replace the hedge with a solid wood fence. Mr. S. Kay put forward a motion to approve the application. Mr. D. McKnight referred to the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division regarding the hedge and the need to comply with the Hedge By-law. Mr. W. Dahms suggested that, in recommending approval of the application, that the entire hedge be removed. Mr. Trbojevic responded that there is some hedge remaining at the front of the property but it is very young and not very tall. Mr. Dahms then suggested that the hedge be trimmed to comply with the Hedge By-law. Mr. Gothard then explained to Mr. Trbojevic the proposed condition that he be required to bring the hedge into compliance with the by-law. On motion by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Milan Trbojevic requesting permission to erect a 1.8 m (5.5 ft.) high fence up to the Iotline along Ruby Street rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.) high fence on Lot 8, Registered Plan 315, 53 Highland Road East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the remaining portion of the hedge, at the front of the property, be brought into compliance with By-law 97-23 being a By-law for Regulating Hedges and Other Objects Which Are Traffic Hazards. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance approved in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, advised the applicant that this recommendation would be forwarded to City Council for consideration at their meeting scheduled for Monday July 7, 1997 and he may attend the Council meeting if he wishes. APPLICATIONS Submission No. F 2/97 - John & Laurel Pautler, 39 Hedgestone Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 80, Registered Plan 1730, 39 Hedgestone Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 4 JUNE 17, 1997 The Secretary advised the Committee that the applicant has withdrawn this application and it was withdrawn prior to being circulated to the neighbourhood. 2. Submission No. F 3/97 - Christine Marques, 59 Denlow Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 47, Registered Plan 1678, 59 Denlow Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. C. Marques 59 Denlow Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE OTHER: Mr. J. Church 64 Denlow Street Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high wooden fence to be setback 0.92 m (3 ft.) from the Iotline along Rose Garden Street rather than the required 4.57 m (15 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft) high wooden fence within 4.57 m (15 ft) of the side lot line abutting Rose Garden Street rather than the permitted 0.92 m (3 ft) fence. Staff note that a portion of the proposed fence will be within the corner visibility triangle. Therefore, it is requested that this application be amended to also request permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft) high fence within the corner triangle rather than the permitted 0.92 m (3 ft). The applicant wishes to construct the 1.82 m (6 ft) high fence to provide privacy and a secure play area for her children. The applicant notes that there are community mail boxes, cable and phone boxes located at the side of her property abutting Rose Garden Street. The intent of the regulations for corner lot fencing is to maintain visibility for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The fence will be located at the side of the house abutting Rose Garden Street. Although not indicated on the submitted drawing, the applicant has confirmed that the fence will continue along the rear yard lot line to enclose her rear yard. The fence will be setback from the lot line abutting Rose Garden Street at least 0.92 m (3 ft). Additionally, the proposed fence will begin at least 10 m (32.9 ft) back from the front lot line. Although a portion of the fence is within the corner triangle, it is not a large area and will pose no visibility problems for both vehicular or pedestrian traffic. In this regard the general intent of the by-law will be maintained. The property which abuts the rear lot line is also used for residential purposes. As the driveway for the abutting property is located at the far side of the house from the subject property, the height of the proposed fence would not appear to obstruct visibility for vehicles backing on Rose Garden Street. According to staff of the Traffic Division, there are no concerns regarding visibility for the fence. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested fence variance is minor in nature and it is appropriate development for the lot. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance, as amended, applying to the proposed fence on the lot shown on the survey prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd., dated COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 5 JUNE 17, 1997 1st November 1995. 2. Submission No. F 3/97 - Christine Marques - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concerns with the proposed fence. The Chairman questioned Ms. Marques as to whether she had read the staff report specifically the portion dealing with the amendment. Ms. Marques advised that she had read the staff report and that she would ask for the amendment as outlined in that report. Mr. Church approached the Committee stating that approximately 4 years ago "No- Parking" had been instituted on that side of Denlow Street. The matter was discussed and it was noted that the fence would not be located on the Denlow Street frontage of the property. On motion by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Christine Marques requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high wooden fence to be setback 0.92 m (3 ft.) from the Iotline along Rose Garden Street rather than the required 4.57 m (15 ft.) and located partially within the visibility triangle on Lot 47, Registered Plan 1678, 59 Denlow Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the fence as approved in this application shall be located in accordance with the plan submitted with the application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance approved in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, advised the applicant that this recommendation would be forwarded to City Council for consideration at their meeting scheduled for Monday July 7, 1997 and she may attend the Council meeting if she wishes. ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of June 1997. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment