Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-07-20 FENCOA\1999-07-20-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:15 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 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications but rather will make a recommendation 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, August 30, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. APPLICATION Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: F 5/99 John & Michelle Kristof 197 Lydia Street Lot 19, Re.qistered Plan 284 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. J. Kristof 197 Lydia Street Kitchener ON N2H 1W2 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard adjacent to Cameron Street, with a height of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the side yard adjacent to Cameron Street, with a height of 1.8 metres (6 ft) rather than the required 0.91 metre (3 ft). The By-law requires a minimum setback of 4.5 metres for fences along property lines abutting a street to ensure clear sight lines for both vehicles and pedestrians. Traffic and Parking staff indicated that they have no concern with the location of the proposed fence, as they will be located well away from the driveway and intersection of Cameron and Lydia Streets. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 14 - JULY 20, 1999 The applicant is also requesting permission to construct a split level deck, with the upper level to be 1.5 metres by 2.4 metres (4.92 ft by 7.87 ft) and the lower level to be 2.1 metres by 3.2 metres Submission No.: F 5/99(Cont'd) (6.89 ft by 10.49 ft), having a 0 metre sideyard setback from Cameron Street, rather than 4.5 metres (14.76 ft). It appears as through the upper most section of the proposed deck would be less than 0.6 metres from finished grade level, which would only require a 3.0 metre setback. The reduced requirement of 3.0 metres should be noted. The deck will be located 1.37 metres (4.49 ft) from the sidewalk along Cameron Street. The location will not hinder pedestrian or vehicular movements, as it would be separated by the fence. The proposed deck and fence will not impede visibility for either pedestrians or vehicles nor will it have any impact on the neighbouring property along Cameron Street. Both the deck and fence will enhance the subject property while maintaining clear sight lines. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of applications F 5/99 and A 71/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed height or location of the fence, nor the proposed sideyard setback. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add to the application. Mr. J. Krsitof responded that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add. The Chair referred to the location of the fence and inquired if it was proposed to extend the fence around the proposed deck. Mr. Kristof responded that was correct. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of John & Michelle Kristof requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard adjacent to Cameron Street, with a height of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 19, Registered Plan 284, 197 Lydia Street, 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 The Chair pointed out to Mr. and Mrs. Kristof that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of August 30, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and advised that they may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 15 - JULY 20, 1999 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: F 6/99 Denise and Linda Rouault 155 Markwood Drive Lot 138, Registered Plan 1286 Appearances: In Support: Ms. L. Rouault 155 Markwood Drive Kitchener ON N2M 2H3 Mr. B. Strickland 161 Markwood Drive Kitchener ON N2M 2H3 Contra: Mr. & Mrs. B. McKenzie 139 Markwood Drive Kitchener ON N2M 2H3 Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. B. Strickland 161 Markwood Drive Kitchener ON N2M 2H3 Neighbourhood Petition Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of two existing fences, the first of which is a 1.82 m (5.9 ft.) high wooden fence located along the easterly sideyard and the second, a 1.2 m (4 ft.) lattice fence located adjacent to the driveway area of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of two existing fences, the first of which is a 1.82 metre (6 ft) high wooden fence located along the easterly sideyard and the second, a 1.2 metre (4ft) lattice fence located adjacent to the driveway of the adjoining semi- detached dwelling. A site inspection of the subject property revealed that in conjunction with the two fences, there also exists a hedge along the side property line abutting the street of approximately 1.2 metres (4 ft) in height. While this is noted on this application, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Hedge - other Objects By-law for which the Committee of Adjustment has not been appointed to deal with variances to its provisions. The 0.9 metre (3ft) height restriction for both fences within 4.5 metres of a line abutting a street is to ensure clear visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles. A site inspection of the subject property revealed that the 1.2 metre (4 ft) high lattice privacy fence which is located adjacent to the driveway of the neighbouring property at 139 Markwood Drive does not create a visibility concern as the openings in the lattice are very large. This fence does not impede visibility for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. According to the drawing, it is set back 2.5 metres (5 feet) from the lot line. The 1.82 metre (6 ft) high section of fence along the property line between 155 and 161 Markwood Drive is not considered to pose a visibility problem even though the fence extends up to the property line. The driveway for 155 Markwood Drive is approximately 7.5 metres (25 ft) away from the fence location and the neighbouring property at 161 Markwood Drive has an even greater distance to the driveway, approximately 13.4 metres (44 ft). Neither property will encounter visibility problems with the location of this fence as it is well beyond the visibility corner for both driveways. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 16 - JULY 20, 1999 The existing hedge along the side yard abutting the street is approximately 1.2 metres (4 ft) high Submission No.: F 6/99(Cont'd) and is located right up to the driveway. Staff from Traffic and Parking advise that this hedge is required to be pruned to the maximum height of 0.9 metres (3 ft) to ensure unimpeded visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application F 6/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and while they have no concerns with the legalization of the existing fence between 155 and 161 Markwood Drive, they are concerned about the fence located between 155 and 139 Markwood Drive. This existing fence is located within the 4.57 m (15 feet) driveway daylight triangle. Despite the fact that this fence is constructed in lattice, there is no guarantee that debris or snow could not build up and cause a visibility concern in this area. Therefore, we are recommending that this fence be cut to a 0.91 m (3 feet) height, 4.57 meters back from the back edge of the sidewalk. In addition, the Traffic & Parking Division advised that they are very concerned with the existing hedge located at the driveway of 155 Markwood Drive. The existing hedge is approximately 1.2 metres (4 feet) high and extends from the property line to the immediate edge of the driveway. This condition creates a visibility deficiency for any motorist exiting this driveway, as any pedestrians traveling along the sidewalk or vehicles moving along the roadway could not be seen. Therefore, the Traffic & Parking Division recommends that this hedge be trimmed to a height of 0.91 metres (3 feet), 4.57 metres ( 15 feet) back from the edge of the driveway. This will provide adequate visibility for any motorist exiting this driveway to see any pedestrians and vehicles. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee reviewed the comments of Mr. Brian Strickland in which he advised that he resides at 161 Markwood Drive. The applicant has requested legalization of two existing fences. My remarks are directed to the six foot (6') fence located along the easterly sideyard. My wife and I have resided at this property since 1971 and have had a six foot fence in this location since 1972. I realize and should have known that the height may have been an infraction of the City by-laws. However, having said that, there has never been a complaint until recently. I do not know who made the complaint, but I am knowledgeable of the fact that there has been a dispute between two of my neighbours. Several complaints have been made to the City and police with respect to various problems. As a result, my wife and I became a casualty. I have enclosed a petition that shows support from the neighbourhood regarding the application of the 1.82 m. fence. Some of the comments I received were: "how stupid", "the fence looks better than the previous one", "who is the idiot that complained", "it doesn't impede the sight lines of the corner", "the fence actually enhances your garden". Not one person refused to sign the petition. In conclusion, I have enclosed a photograph of the fence as it was 26 years ago, and how it looks as of last week. The Committee noted the comments of a neighbourhood petition in which they advised that they have no objection to the fence located between the properties of 155 and 161 Markwood Drive. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add to the application. Ms. L. Rouault responded that she had nothing further to add; however, did point out to the Committee that she has concerns with a requirement to cut the existing hedge COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 17 - JULY 20, 1999 located on the property as the hedge had been at its present height for some 10 to 15 years and, in her opinion, did not create any site problems. 2. Submission No.: F 6/99(Cont'd) The Chair referred to a neighbourhood petition that was in support of the fence located between the properties at 155 and 161 Markwood Drive and, in this regard, Mr. B. Strickland advised that he was appearing in support of the application and was the owner of the neighbouring property located at 161 Markwood Drive. Mr. Strickland referred to pictures that had been distributed to the Committee, noting that the fences were aesthetically pleasing and that he was in agreement with Ms. Rouault's comments that they did not create visibility problems. He advised that he had petitioned neighbouring properties, all of whom had willingly signed in support of the application. Mr. B. McKenzie advised that he was the owner of the property located at 139 Markwood Drive, and that he was appearing in opposition to the application. He stated that the fence abutting his property made it difficult to see pedestrians and oncoming traffic when backing out of his driveway. He advised that his driveway sloped towards the street and the fence and hedges in the area made it very difficult for him to see. The Chair asked Mr. McKenzie if he was objecting to the northerly fence and Mr. McKenzie responded that was correct. Mr. McKenzie further advised that he had photographs of the property which he presented to the Committee. The Chair noted that the Traffic & Parking Division has no concerns with the southerly fence between 155 and 161 Markwood Drive; however, does have concern with the northerly fence between 139 and 155 Markwood Drive. Ms. L. Rouault stated that the fences had been erected prior to the McKenzie's purchasing 139 Markwood Drive and, in the 3 years that the McKenzie's had lived next door, she had received no complaints from the McKenzie's with respect to the fence. She stated that she believed that Mr. McKenzie was now opposing the application as a result of a recent dispute between herself and Mr. McKenzie with respect to enlargement of his driveway, which is currently under litigation. Ms. Rouault referred to Traffic comments with respect to build up of debris or snow and stated that, in her opinion, this would not be a problem as the property is well maintained. She further stated that the location of the northerly fence provided ample opportunity to see pedestrians and oncoming traffic prior to exiting the driveway. Mr. B. McKenzie stated that his main concern was with respect to pedestrians and the possibility of children being on the sidewalk which he would not be able to see when backing out of his driveway. Mr. A. Galloway referred to the report of the Department of Business and Planning Services and noted that the report refers to the northerly fence being setback 2.5 m (5 ft.) from the lot line. He stated that 2.5 m is actually 8 ft. and questioned if this would affect staff's comments. Ms. J. Given responded that staff's comments would not be affected as the metric measurement given in the report was incorrect and the fence is 5 ft. from the lot line. Mr. A. Galloway inquired as to how close the fence could be to the lot line and Ms. Given responded that the fence could be up to the lot line; however, it would only be allowed to be 3 ft. in height, rather than the existing 4 ft. Ms. S. Campbell referred to the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which it is suggested that the fence located between 155 and 139 Markwood Drive be cut back to a height of 3 ft. and back 15 ft. from the back edge of the sidewalk. In this regard, she inquired if staff had done a site inspection. Mr. R. Parent responded that a site inspection had been undertaken and, while the fence is lattice and can be seen through, there is no guarantee that debris would not build up and create a visibility problem. In addition, he stated that the existing driveway is almost below grade at the point of exit which makes visibility difficult given the existing height of the fence. Ms. S. Campbell questioned if the visibility concerns related to pedestrians or vehicles. In this regard, Mr. Parent responded that the visibility concerns related to pedestrians and, in particular, children. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 18 - JULY 20, 1999 Submission No.: F 6/99(Cont'd) Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was in agreement that the fence located between 139 and 155 Markwood Drive created visibility problems; however, he would support approval of legalizing the fence between 155 and 161 Markwood Drive. The Chair and Ms. S. Campbell also indicated that they could not support the fence between 139 and 155 Markwood Drive. The Chair clarified that the Committee was prepared to legalize the fence between 155 and 161 Markwood Drive; however, was not prepared to legalize the fence between 139 and 155 Markwood Drive. He stated that if the fence between 139 and 155 Markwood Drive was cut down to 3 ft. it would be approved. The Chair then referred to the Traffic & Parking Division's comments with respect to the hedge and the Secretary advised the Committee that regulations pertaining to hedges are governed by Chapter 842 of the City's Municipal Code, for which the Committee has not been given delegated authority to enforce. Mr. R. Parent explained the Traffic & Parking Division's position with respect to the hedge and pointed out to the applicant that the Division would require the hedge to be cut back to 3 ft. in height and 15 ft. back from the edge of the driveway. The Chair requested that the applicant speak with staff of the Traffic & Parking Division after the meeting, as the Committee does not have delegated authority to deal with hedges. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Denise and Linda Rouault requesting permission to legalize an existing fence, located between 155 and 161 Markwood Drive, being 1.82 m (5.9 ft.) in height, on Lot 138, Registered Plan 1286, 155 Markwood Drive, 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 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Denise and Linda Rouault requesting permission to legalize an existing fence, located between 139 and 155 Markwood Drive, being 1.2 m (4 ft.) in height, on Lot 138, Registered Plan 1286, 155 Markwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630 (fence) is not maintained on the subject property. Carried The Chair pointed out to Ms. Rouault that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council which will be considered at the Council meeting of August 30, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 19 - JULY 20, 1999 the Council Chamber and advised that she may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of July, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment