Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-09-16 FENCOA\1997-09-16-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, W. Dahms, D. McKnight, and S. Kay OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Morgan, Co-ordinator Zoning Administration and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:50 a.m. 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 10/97 and F 11/97 would be forwarded to the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday September 29, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. and they may appear at the Council meeting if they wish. Submission No. F 10/97 - Gerald & Noreen Braganza, 369 Driftwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Lot 63, Registered Plan 1505, 369 Driftwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. N. Braganza 369 Driftwood Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a fence 0.6 m (2 ft.) from the property line along Old Forest Crescent rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a fence 0.6 metres (2 ft) from the property line along Old Forest Crescent rather than the required 4.5 metres (15 ft) setback. Although not noted on the submitted application, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed height of the fence is 1.83 metres (6 ft). Only that portion of the fence within 4.5 metres of Old Forest Crescent requires Committee approval. The applicants wish to construct the 1.83 metre high fence to make the best use of space in their rear yard and to provide an area for a vegetable garden. The intent of the required 4.5 metres (15 ft) setback on corner lots is to maintain visibility for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The abutting property to the rear (Lot 59 - 5 Old Forest Crescent) is also used for residential purposes. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 As the driveway for the abutting property is located on 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 onto Old Forest Crescent. 1. Submission No. F 10/97 - Gerald & Noreen Braqanza - cont'd It is noted that the fence is located outside the corner visibility triangle. Staff note that the applicants have submitted a hand-drawn sketch of the subject property. It is the applicants' responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the exact location of the lot lines, as indicated on the survey for the property. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested fence variance is minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance for the fence as indicated on the drawing submitted with this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that, in their view, the proposed fence will not affect traffic operations in the area and as such they have no concerns. The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that the applicants should be advised that there is an existing hydro underground plant at the rear of the lot and that locates will be required. The Chairman read from the staff comments with respect to the hand drawn sketch and advised Ms. Braganza that it would be her responsibility to determine exactly where the lot lines are. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Gerald & Noreen Braganza requesting permission to erect a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high fence 0.6 m (2 ft.) from the property line along Old Forest Crescent rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.) on Lot 63, Registered Plan 1505, 369 Driftwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only to the location as shown on the drawing 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 Submission No. F 11/97 - Frank Holl, 90 Franklin Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 267, 90 Franklin Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. R. Iljas 160 Lennox Crescent Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 IN SUPPORT: Mr. W. Buzza 489 Prospect Avenue Kitchener ON CONTRA: NONE 2. Submission No. F 11/97 - Frank Holl - cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a 1.52 m (5 ft.) high fence on the Iotline along Prospect Avenue rather than having the fence setback 4.5 m (15 ft.) from the lot line. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a 1.52 metre (5 ft.) high fence on the lot line along Prospect Avenue rather than providing the 4.5 metre (14.76 ft.) required setback. The Bylaw permits 0.91 metre (3 ft.) high fencing in this location. This application should also be amended to request legalization of existing 1.2 metre (4 ft.) high fencing along the rear lot line which is setback 0 metres from the Prospect Avenue property line rather than the 4.5 metre (14.76 ft.) required setback. The proposed fence would completely enclose the rear yard. There is existing chain link fencing along the rear property line and the left side yard. The applicant would like to enclose the yard for greater privacy. The intent of the required 4.5 metre (14.76 ft.) setback from the side lot line abutting the street is to allow unobstructed visibility for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Recently, the applicant removed 1.83 metre (6 ft.) high hedging where the fencing is proposed. The neighbouring property to the rear, addressed 489 Prospect Avenue has a driveway abutting the subject property's rear lot line. After a site inspection by Traffic and Parking Department staff, it is recommended the existing fencing height be reduced to .91 metres (3 ft.) high for a distance of 4.57 metres (15 ft.) along the rear property line and that the proposed fencing along the Prospect Avenue frontage, for a distance of 4.5 metres (14.76 ft.) when measured from where the rear lot line intersects with the Prospect Avenue lot line be also reduced to .91 metres (3 ft.) in height. Traffic and Parking staff also recommend the proposed fencing, for a distance of 2.59 metres (8.5 ft.) between the Prospect Ave. property line towards the garage, and for a distance of 4.57 metres (15 ft.) along the Prospect Avenue property line from the corner closest to the garage towards the rear lot line be reduced to the .91 metres (3 ft.) permitted by the Bylaw. Planning Department staff agree with the Traffic and Parking Department's comments as the visibility recommendations seem appropriate for this corner property given the driveway locations for both the subject property as well as the property abutting the rear yard. These recommendations maintain the intent of the Bylaw by maintaining site visibility lines. As there is no survey available, the applicant must ensure the locations of the property lines are accurate prior to the erection of any new fencing. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application subject to the recommendations to reduce the fence height to .91 metres (3 ft.) or remove the portions of fencing noted above in order to maintain site visibility lines. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that, in order to maintain adequate site lines from the driveway on this property as well as the driveway on the abutting property it is recommended that a 15 ft. site triangle be provided adjacent to both of these driveways. Alternatively, the fence could be reduced in height to comply with by-law regulations. The Chairman questioned whether there is a fence now and Ms. Iljas advised that there is no fence from Franklin Avenue to the driveway. He then questioned the 15 ft. site triangle and where they would be placed in relation to the driveway and Mr. R. Morgan advised that there are two site triangles required, one in relation to the driveway with no fencing being permitted towards the garage. A discussion took place over the need for the visibility triangles and it was noted that the driveway is 32 ft. wide. Ms. Iljas submitted a letter from the neighbouring property owner advising that he has no objection to the proposed fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 2. Submission No. F 11/97 - Frank Holl - cont'd It was also noted that there is a 20 ft. boulevard along Prospect Avenue before reaching the paved portion of the road. It was the feeling of the Committee members that with the 32 ft. wide driveway and an additional 20 ft. of boulevard between the property line and the travelled portion of Prospect Road that the daylight triangle would not be necessary. At the request of Ms. Iljas the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application for the fence along the rear Iotline as noted in the comments of the Department of Planning & Development. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Frank Holl requesting permission to erect a 1.52 m (5 ft.) high fence on the Iotline along Prospect Avenue rather than being setback 4.5 m (15 ft.) from the Iotline along Prospect Avenue and legalization of an existing 1.2 m (4 ft.) high fence along the rear Iotline setback 0 m from the Prospect Avenue property line rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.) on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 267, 90 Franklin Street North, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. 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 Submission No. F 12/97 - Stephanie Meyer, 3 Broken Oak Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Lot 691, Registered Plan 1391, 3 Broken Oak Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Nowak 421 King St. North Waterloo ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing 1.82 m (6 ft.) high fence located up to the Iotline along Westheights Drive rather than being setback 4.5 m (15 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is seeking legalization of an existing 1.82m (6 ft) high fence located up to the lot line along Westheights Drive rather than being setback 4.5m (15 ft). Staff advise the Committee that this application for variance is the direct result of an investigation of a complaint received by the City's By-law Enforcement Section. The applicant is seeking this variance to provide secure play space and privacy in the rear yard area. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 3. Submission No. F 12/97 - Stephanie Meyer - cont'd The right side yard has a 1.52m (5 ft) fence along the property line with 1.82m (6 ft) fencing along the rear and a portion of the side yard abutting Westheights Drive. The intent of the required 4.5m (15 ft) set back from the side lot line abutting the street is to ensure unobstructed visibility for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. As well as an unobstructed view for vehicles exiting their driveways. The driveway for the subject property fronts onto Westheights Drive. Staff note there is currently a 2.4m (8 ft) high solid wood fence along the length of the driveway from the sidewalk. The abutting property at 536 Westheights Drive is a Bell Canada switching station which also has a driveway fronting on Westheights Drive. The fence along the applicant's driveway as well as the fence along Westheights Drive and the rear lot line could possibly cause visibility problems for vehicles exiting the subject site, as well as for vehicles exiting the Bell Canada site. In this regard, the intent of the by-law is not being met. In addition to the above, a site inspection revealed that the existing gate and fencing across the driveway appears to block off the legal parking space for this property. The City's By-law requires a parking space to be located a minimum of 6.0m (20 ft) from the lot line. The existing fence must either be moved to accommodate the required 4.5m (15 ft) setback along the driveway, side property line and rear property line or be reduced in height to 0.91m (3 ft) which is the permitted height for fencing in these locations, and the gate and fencing blocking the required parking space also be removed. The Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of this application as shown on the attached plan. Staff also note that measures must be taken to bring this fence into compliance by either meeting the required 4.5m (15 ft) setback or reducing the height to 0.91m (3 ft), and reinstating the required parking space for the property. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a permit is required for the above ground pool. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that the Division does not support the request to legalize the existing fence. The fence causes a site obstruction from the driveway to this property and also from the driveway on the abutting lot. It is recommended that the fence be relocated or reduced in height to comply with by-law regulations. The Chairman questioned whether there is a pool on the property and Mr. Nowak advised that there is an above-ground pool. The Chairman then pointed out the comments of the Director of Building that a permit is required for the pool. The Chairman then questioned whether there is another lot adjacent to the rear Iotline and Mr. Nowak responded that there is a Bell Telephone building on the rear lot. The Chairman then questioned whether the driveway is off Westheights and Mr. Nowak responded that it is, and the front entrance of the house is off Broken Oak Crescent. Mr. Nowak submitted photographs of the subject fence. He advised that Bell has indicated that the fence does not impede their access to their property, which is not required on a day to day basis. Mr. Nowak explained that Mr. & Mrs. Meyer are first time home buyers and not familiar with Municipal By- laws. They contacted the City about the rules but misunderstood the necessity of a building permit. In response to comments from the Department of Planning & Development, Mr. Nowak pointed out that this is not an 8 ft. high fence, it is 6 ft. high; however, the posts are 8 ft. high. They would not be cut until it is determined whether the fence has to be moved. Concerning the gate, it does not obstruct parking. The area inside the gate is used as a patio. Mr. Nowak also noted that there are similar fences in the neighbourhood. Further, Mr. Nowak advised that people entering Westheights Drive from Broken Oak do not have their vision impeded by the fence. 3. Submission No. F 12/97 - Stephanie Meyer - cont'd The Committee questioned Mr. R. Morgan concerning the required height of fences around pools and Mr. Morgan responded that a fence must be a minimum 5 ft. high and non-climbable. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Mr. S. Kay questioned the required setback for parking and Mr. Morgan advised that it must be setback 20 ft. from the Iotline. Mr. Kay then questioned where the legal parking is for this property and Mr. Morgan advised that there is no legal parking on this site. A discussion then followed as to where a legal parking space could be located. Mr. D. McKnight felt that this location requires a visibility triangle. It is not possible for anyone to see backing out of this driveway. The Committee agreed that this was a dangerous situation. Mr. S. Kay suggested refusing the application. Mr. W. Dahms suggested giving the applicant an opportunity to amend the application in accordance with the Planning Department comments. Mr. Nowak asked the Committee to defer consideration of this application so that he may review the situation and determine the Iotlines in relation to the sidewalk. It was generally agreed that consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting of October 7, 1997. The Chairman asked Mr. Nowak to consider the need for: a 5 ft. high fence around the pool, the location of the fence in relation to the Westheight Iotline and the visibility problem. It was his opinion that staff have identified a definite traffic hazard. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th, day of September 1997. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment