HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-07-15 FENCOA\1997-07-15-FENCE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1997
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, W. Dahms, D. McKnight, S. Kay and A. Galloway.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Mr. J. Willmer, Intermediate Planner, Mr. R. Morgan, Co-ordinator Zoning
Administration and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer.
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.
APPLICATIONS
The Chairman explained that the Committee's decisions with respect to Fence Variances are not final, but
recommendations to City Council. He advised all those present that the Committee's recommendations
for Submission No.'s F 4/97, F 5/97 and F 6/97 would be forwarded to the City Council meeting
scheduled for Monday August 18, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. and they may appear at the Council meeting if they
wish.
Submission No. F 4/97 - Jeff and Betty-Anne Flanagan, 224 General Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Lot 54, Registered Plan 1733, 224 General Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. J. Flanagan
224 General Drive
Kitchener ON
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a 1.82 m (6 ft.)
high fence to be located 0.31 m (1 ft.) from the side property line along General Drive rather than the
required 4.58 m (15 ft.) from the property line along General Drive.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a 1.83 m (6 ft.) high fence setback approximately
0.30 m (1 ft.) from the General Drive property line rather than the required 4.5 metres (14.76 ft.) setback.
The bylaw permits 0.91 metres (2.99 ft.) high fencing in this location.
The proposed 1.52 m (5 ft.) high solid wood fencing with 0.30 m (1 ft.) of lattice on top will be used to
enclose the applicants' rear yard. The fenced rear yard would allow the applicants greater security and
privacy. By complying with the by-law requirement for a 1.83 m (6 ft.) high fence, it would restrict the
useability of the applicants' rear yard.
The intent of the regulations for corner lot fencing is to maintain visibility for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic. This property is located at the curved corner of General Drive. General Drive is not a heavily
travelled street and the proposed fencing would not obstruct vehicular traffic visibility at the corner;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 7 JULY 15, 1997
therefore, the proposed setback can be considered minor in nature.
1. Submission No. F 4/97 - Jeff and Betty-Anne Flanaqan - cont'd
The property abutting the subject property's rear lot line, addressed 17 General Drive, does not have a
driveway abutting the rear lot line, rather the driveway is located on the far side of the house. The
proposed fencing would not cause a visibility problem for the abutting property owner entering or exiting
their property from General Drive, thereby meeting the intent of the By-law.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application, as shown on the
submitted plan.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
no concerns with the location of the fence, as proposed.
Mr. W. Dahms questioned Mr. Flanagan as to whether his neighbour at the rear knew about the
application and Mr. Flanagan responded that the neighbours did know about the application for the fence
and they are not opposed.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned the 1 ft. variance shown on the sketch, and Mr. Flanagan responded that it is
only at that point that the sideyard is 1 ft. and the rest is greater.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of the Jeff & Betty-Anne Flanagan requesting permission to construct a 1.82 m (6 ft.)
high fence to be located 0.31 m (1 ft.) from the property line along General Drive rather than the required
4.58 m (15 ft.) on Lot 54, Registered Plan 1733, 224 General Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED
subject to the following condition:
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed fence only as shown
on the plan submitted with this 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 Chapter 630 (Fence) is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
2. Submission No. F 5/97 - Cindy & Tim Kerr, 3 Marlis Crescent, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re:
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Lot 55, Registered Plan 1730, 3 Marlis Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
CONTRA:
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. T. Kerr
3 Marlis Crescent
Kitchener ON
NONE
NONE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 8 JULY 15, 1997
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high
fence to be located 0.91 m (3 ft.) from their side Iotline abutting Erinbrook Drive rather than the required
4.58 m (15 ft.) from the side Iotline abutting Erinbrook Drive.
2. Submission No. F 5/97 - Cindy & Tim Kerr - cont'd
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high wooden fence to be located 0.9
m (3 ft.) from their side lot line abutting Erinbrook Drive rather than the required 4.58 m (15 ft.) from the
side lot line abutting Erinbrook Drive.
The intent of the 4.5 m (15 ft.) setback requirement from the side lot line abutting the street is to ensure
that vehicles approaching an intersection have sufficient visibility. Additionally, the setback is necessary
in instances where the rear lot line abuts the neighbouring property's driveway to ensure visibility for the
property owner when exiting their driveway.
The subject fence will not be located within the required 50 ft. (15.2 m) visibility corner nor will its
proposed location appear to cause a visibility concern for vehicles turning at the intersection of Marlis
Crescent and Erinbrook Drive. Additionally, the property abutting the rear lot line (77 Marlis Crescent)
has its driveway fronting onto Marlis Crescent. In this regard, the proposed fence poses no visibility
concerns for that property owner as well.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning & Development that the application as submitted is minor
in nature and the general intent of the fence by-law is being maintained. As such, approval is
recommended for Submission F 5/97.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
no concerns with the proposed fence location.
Mr. S. Kay put forward a motion to approve the application in accordance with the staff comments.
The Committee made mention of the plan submitted with the application and that as there were no survey
stakes shown. The applicant should understand that they must know exactly where there Iotline is before
erecting the fence.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Tim & Cindy Kerr requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high wooden
fence to be located 0.91 m (3 ft.) from the side Iotline abutting Erinbrook Drive rather than the required
4.58 m (15 ft.) on Lot 55, Registered Plan 1730, 3 Marlis Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED
subject to the following condition:
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed fence only as shown
on the plan submitted with this 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 Chapter 630 (Fence) is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
3. Submission No. F 6/97 - Keith Plater, 18 Briar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario.
Re: Lot 6, Registered Plan 133, 18 Briar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 9 JULY 15, 1997
Mr. S. Kay declared a conflict of interest with this application as his law firm has acted for the applicant
and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
3. Submission No. F 6/97 - Keith Plater - cont'd
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Ms. A. Houston
18 Dyer Avenue
Kitchener ON
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high
fence around their rearyard to be located up to the Iotline along Dekay Street rather than 4.58 m (15 ft.)
from the Iotline along Dekay Street.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a 1.83 m (6 ft.) high fence setback 0 m from Dekay
Street rather than the 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) required. The By-law permits 0.91 m (2.99 ft.) high fencing in this
location.
The proposed fence would completely enclose the rear yard. The fencing would provide privacy from
traffic along Dekay Street and a secured area for the applicant's large dog. The applicant has not chosen
the construction material for the fencing.
The intent of the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) setback from the side lot line abutting the street is to allow
unobstructed visibility for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Presently, the abutting property to the rear
addressed 19 Dekay Street, does not have a driveway; therefore, the proposed fencing would not appear
to adversely affect the neighbouring property. On the sideyard abutting Dekay Street, it should be noted
the applicant's property slopes downwards towards the sidewalk. The fence would be erected on the
higher grade and because of this would not cause visibility concerns for pedestrian or vehicular traffic
along Dekay Street; and therefore, meeting the intent of the By-law.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application, as shown on the
submitted plan.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that, given the
existing grade and other conditions on the frontyard of the abutting property on Dekay Street, it was their
opinion that the proposed fence will not impact existing sight lines from the driveway of this abutting
property.
When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Houston advised that the property at the rear has a garden on
that side of their property and there is not enough room for a driveway on that side. She advised that
there is already a 5 ft. chainlink fence at that point.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Keith Plater requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high fence around the
rearyard to be located up to the Iotline along Dekay Street rather than 4.58 m (15 ft.) from the Iotline along
Dekay Street on Lot 6, Registered Plan 133, 18 Briar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject
to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 10 JULY 15, 1997
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to proposed fence only as shown on
the plan submitted with this application.
3. Submission No. F 6/97 - Keith Plater - cont'd
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.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fence) is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNED
On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th, day of July 1997.
D. H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment