Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-08-17 FENCOA\1999-08-17-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. S. Kay and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:10 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: Legal Description: F 7/99 Robert & Jennifer Maxwell 28 Donley Street Lot 13, Plan 886 and the Westerly 5 feet of Even Perpendicular Width Throughout From Front to Rear of Lot 14, Plan 886 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Maxwell 28 Donley Street Kitchener ON N2M 3P1 Contra: Mr. H. Dessler 12 Kelvin Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3N8 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard abutting Kelvin Avenue, with a height of 1.82 m (6 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 sideyard abutting Kelvin Avenue, with a height of 1.82 meters, rather than the permitted 0.91 meters. The applicant advised that they wish to have the 1.82 meter fence to provide a secure play area for their children. They also wish to have a more private yard area, and if they set the fence back the required 4.5 meters they would lose the usability of a large portion of the lot. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 21 - AUGUST 17, 1999 The By-law allows fences located in a side yard abutting a street to be a maximum of 0.9 meters Submission No.: F 7/99 (Cont'd) high and located up to the property line, or alternatively, be set back 4.5 meters from the side property line and have a maximum height of 2.4 meters. These requirements are in place to ensure adequate visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles by maintaining clear sight lines. Upon site inspection, staff note that the proposed fence is to be located so that it will effectively be blocking off the required parking space for the dwelling. The applicant has been notified that a variance to the Zoning By-law will be required to address the location of the modified parking space on the property, being located ahead of the required 6.0 meter setback, and a driveway that does not meet the required 12.0 meter setback from the intersection. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends deferral of this application to the September 14, 1999 meeting, or until an application for minor variance to legalize the parking space and driveway are received. 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 it is recommended that the proposed location be modified to provide a 4.57 driveway visibility triangle at the existing driveway on the abutting Kelvin Avenue property, as measured from the back edge of the sidewalk. Through review of this application, we have learned that a variance may be required pertaining to the existing driveway. It is our understanding that this matter would be dealt with through application. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that the Department of Business and Planning Services is recommending deferral of the application to allow an additional minor variance application to be submitted to the Committee with regard to legalization of a parking space and driveway. In this regard, the Chair inquired of Mr. Maxwell if he was opposing staff's recommendation. Mr. Maxwell responded that he would prefer to proceed with his application at this meeting and stated that he had met with Mr. K. Mayer of the Traffic and Parking Division, who had made suggestions with respect to the driveway. He stated that, if undertaken, these would satisfy concerns of the Traffic and Parking Division. He stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Mayer's recommendations and planned to follow through with them. The Chair requested comment from staff and Ms. Given responded that if the Committee decided to proceed with consideration of the application it should be dealt with as modified to ensure that the location of the fence does not obstruct the required parking space for the dwelling. She stated that if the fence was allowed to be constructed as proposed it would create a situation whereby the parking space on the property would then be located ahead of the required 6 metre setback. She advised that a minor variance application would be required to address the issue of the parking space and driveway and asked that the Committee consider whether or not they may prejudice the outcome of the minor variance application if they agreed to approve the fence as proposed. She stated that the Committee could consider approving a portion of the fence up to a location that would not interfere with the parking space on an interim basis pending the outcome of the minor variance application. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the driveway has legal status and Ms. Given responded that, while it has recently been widened, the existing driveway does have legal non-conforming status. Mr. A. Galloway questioned why it was not possible to move the fence back 2 or 3 feet and Mr. Maxwell responded that if it were moved back further it would interfere with the rear door and would have to be placed in such a way as to cause his children to exit and enter the rear door outside of the fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 22 - AUGUST 17, 1999 The Chair questioned what the Traffic and Parking Division had recommended to Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Maxwell responded that Mr. K. Mayer had recommended that the driveway be widened so as not to affect the daylight triangle. Mr. Maxwell further demonstrated the Submission No.: F 7/99 (Cont'd) proposed widening on plans presented to the Committee and advised that he had applied for the variance. The Chair requested staff to respond and Ms. Given stated that preferably the issue of the fence and minor variance should be considered together or, alternatively, the Committee should only approve a 37.6 ft setback for the fence from Donley Street. She further noted that in the comments received from the Traffic and Parking Division they are recommending that the proposed location of the fence be modified to provide a 4.5 m driveway visibility triangle at the existing driveway on the abutting Kelvin Avenue property. Ms. S. Campbell inquired of Mr. Maxwell if he would be agreeable to the suggestion of Ms. Given to approve a portion of the fence with the remainder to be decided upon pending the outcome of the minor variance application. Mr. Maxwell responded that he would be agreeable as this would allow him to at least start construction of the fence and, in the area that has not been approved, he could place something temporary such as a snow fence. The Chair pointed out that the Committee's recommendation was not approval of the fence but rather a recommendation to City Council only. In this regard, he stated that if only a portion of the fence was approved at this time and recommended to Council the applicant would then have to come back to have the remaining portion of the fence approved and again have to go to Council. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation to defer this application until such time as the minor variance application is dealt with. Ms. S. Campbell also stated that she was not in favour of erecting a snow fence. The Chair inquired when the next meeting of the Committee would be held and the Secretary advised that the next meeting was scheduled for September 14, 1999. The Chair questioned if Mr. Maxwell had submitted an application for the September 14th meeting and Mr. Maxwell responded that he had. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was prepared to support approval of a portion of the fence but was unsure how to formulate this into a motion. In this regard, Ms. Given suggested that the motion to approve refer to allowing construction of the fence no closer than 38 feet from the Donley Street lot line. She further advised that the Committee should then defer consideration of the remaining portion of the fence to the next meeting so that it can be dealt with at the same time as the minor variance application. The Chair questioned if the remaining portion of the fence should become a part of the minor variance application or remain separate and Ms. Given advised that it should remain separate. The Chair questioned if it was possible to approve the fence conditional upon approval of the minor variance and Ms. Given responded that this could be done; however, she again pointed out that the Committee should consider whether such approval would prejudice the outcome of the minor variance application. The Chair stated that he did not see a problem with approving a portion of the fence conditional upon approval of the minor variance application provided the applicant understood that he would only be able to build the fence 38 feet from the Donley Street lot line and if the variance was not approved he would not be able to build the fence any closer than that to the Donley Street lot line. Ms. J. Given advised that the Committee could recommend approval of the entire fence conditional upon approval of the minor variance. The Chair stated that he did not wish to leave the impression that the entire fence could be built as part of it would then have to be torn down if the minor variance was not approved. Mr. Maxwell indicated that he understood what was being proposed and the rationale for it. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 23 - AUGUST 17, 1999 The Chair stated that he was prepared to approve that the fence be constructed up to 38 feet back from the Donley Street lot line and the entire fence as requested be constructed conditional upon the successful outcome of a minor variance application to this Committee which would allow the parking space to be ahead of the required 6 metre setback and the Submission No.: F 7/99 (Cont'd) driveway to be closer than the required 12 metre setback from the intersection. Ms. J. Given pointed out that such approval should also include the 4.5 metre visibility triangle at the existing driveway on the abutting Kelvin Avenue property as requested by the Traffic and Parking Division. Ms. Campbell indicated that she was prepared to support such approval. Ms. H. Dessler appeared before the Committee and stated that he wished to know what the height requirements were and how far the fence should be back from his driveway as he understood it was to be 15 feet inside the sidewalk line. The Chair questioned the location of Mr. Dessler's driveway and Mr. Dessler advised that his driveway was adjacent to the rear of Mr. Maxwell's property. In this regard, the Chair pointed out that the issue of a daylight triangle corner at Mr. Dessler's driveway is to be included in approval of this application. Mr. Dessler also advised that he was speaking on behalf of another neighbour who was unable to attend the meeting who was opposed to the 6 ft. height of the fence. Ms. S. Campbell questioned on what basis the other neighbour was opposed to the 6 ft. height and Mr. Dessler responded that they felt it would not be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. S. Campbell questioned how high the fence could be and Ms. Given responded that the by-law requires a fence abutting a street to be no higher than 3 ft. in height and the applicant was applying for a variance to construct a 6 ft. fence which is higher than the by-law permits. Mr. Dessler stated that he had discussed the issue of the fence with Mr. Maxwell and had been of the opinion that an agreement had been reached that the fence would be 5 ft. and lattice; however, it is now proposed to have a 6 ft. wooden fence which has already been started as fence posts have been installed. He stated that his main concern was whether or not he would be able to see when exiting his driveway. The Chair advised that the issue of visibility at the corner of Mr. Maxwell's property and Mr. Dessler's driveway is to be dealt with as part of approval of this application and if fence posts are in that corner already they will have to be removed. Mr. Dessler stated that he felt a 6 ft. fence was not necessary and advised that the property drops about 2 ft. in the middle of the back lawn and, when standing in that position, the fence would look more like 8 ft. Mr. Maxwell advised that originally it was proposed to construct a 5 ft. lattice fence; however, the reason for proposing a 6 ft. wooden fence was to ensure privacy and security for his children. He stated if the fence was lower it would be possible to see over the fence into the backyard at certain points on the street as the street goes up hill. He stated that for the safety of his children he preferred to have a higher fence so they could not be seen. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, in view of the issues raised, he would prefer to defer consideration of the fence application so that it could be considered along with the minor variance application at the September 14th meeting. The Chair agreed that it did not seem appropriate to proceed with the application at this time and suggested to Mr. Maxwell that he discuss issues of concern with his neighbours and attempt to resolve all of the issues outlined this date prior to consideration of the application at the next meeting. Mr. Dessler questioned if it would be possible for Mr. Maxwell to erect a snow fence in the interim. The Chair advised that this was not permitted; however, Ms. Given clarified that Mr. Maxwell could construct a fence up to the maximum of 3 ft. in height permitted by the by-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 24 - AUGUST 17, 1999 Submission No.: F 7/99 (Cont'd) Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Robert & Jennifer Maxwell requesting a variance to Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code - Submission No. F 7~99 - 28 Donley Street, BE DEFERRED, to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for September 14, 1999, for consideration in conjunction with an application for minor variance. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: F 8/99 Weldon & Kathe Johnston 128 Queen Street North Part Lot 226 & Part Lot 227, Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: Mr. W. Johnston 128 Queen Street North Kitchener ON N2H 2H7 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 abutting Ellen Street West, from the existing driveway and extending to the rear lot line, having a height of 1.95 m (6.4 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence on the Ellen Street lot line from the existing driveway to the rear lot line, having a height of 1.95 metres (6.4 feet) rather than the required 0.91 metres (3 feet). It is noted that variance approval is required only for that portion of the fence within 4.51 metres of the Ellen Street lot line. The applicants wish to construct the fence to contain their dog. In addition, they have future plans to construct a pool on the property. Pools must be enclosed by a fence with a minimum height of 1.5 metres (5 feet). The proposed fence will not be located in the corner visibility triangle of the intersecting streets. Also, the applicant has shown on the submitted drawing that a visibility triangle will be provided adjacent to the driveway on the subject property. The driveway for the abutting property at 11 Ellen Street is located adjacent to the proposed fence. However, it is noted that at the rear corner of the property line along Ellen Street, the property line is approximately 3.3 metres (11 feet) from the sidewalk. The property line angles toward the sidewalk as it approaches the corner. Consequently, there would exist sufficient visibility for the driveway at 11 Ellen Street. The Traffic Division has no visibility concerns with the subject variance. It is noted that there is no survey for the subject property and that it is the responsibility of the applicants to locate the lot lines and construct the fence accordingly. Based on the above comments, it is staff's opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being maintained. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 25 - AUGUST 17, 1999 The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the requested variance relative to the fence as shown on the drawing submitted by the applicant. Submission No.: F 8/99 (Cont'd) 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 regarding the proposed fence location as it would not encroach into the 4.57 m driveway visibility triangle at the abutting Ellen Street property. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair inquired of Mr. Johnston if he had reviewed the comments and had anything further to add. Mr. Johnston advised that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Weldon & Kathe Johnston requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard abutting Ellen Street West, from the existing driveway and extending to the rear lot line, having a height of 1.95 m (6.4 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Part Lot 226 and Part Lot 227, Plan 374, 128 Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Submission No. F 8/99. 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. Johnston 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 he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: Appearances: In Support: F 9/99 Steve Habermehl 45 Strange Street Part of Lot 24, Plan 329 Mr. S. Habermehl 45 Strange Street Kitchener ON N2G 1P8 Mr. N. Dahl 108 Cherry Street Kitchener ON N2G 2C8 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 26 - AUGUST 17, 1999 Contra: Mrs. E. Hoch 107 Cherry Street Kitchener ON N2G 2C9 Submission No.: F 9/99 (Cont'd) Mr. C. Hoch 98 Randerson Avenue Kitchener ON N2H 3L9 Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. S. Habermehl 45 Strange Street Kitchener ON N2G 1P8 Neighbourhood Petition Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing fence along the sideyard abutting Cherry Street, having a 1.82 m (6 ft.) height, 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 legalize an existing fence within 4.6 metres (15 feet) of the lot line on Cherry Street, having a height of 1.82 metres (6 feet) rather than the required 0.91 metres (3 feet). The applicant erected the 1.82 metre-high fence to provide a secure area for his two children. The fence has been built flush with an existing garage that is set back 6.7 metres (6.69 feet) from the lot line along Cherry Street. This setback of the garage does not comply pursuant to the existing Zoning By-law but is considered legal relative to the Vacuum By-law within By-law 85-1. A site visit revealed that the fence does not appear to pose a visibility concern. The distance to the lot line is approximately 1.8 m (6 feet) but there are also approximately 3 metres of boulevard to the paved portion of the street. There is no sidewalk adjacent to the subject property along Cherry Street and in addition there are "No Parking" signs along the lot line. There appears to be sufficient room for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway to clearly view traffic on the street. Staff note that the fence is not located within the corner visibility triangle. It is also noted that access to the driveway located on the abutting lot is located on the opposite side of the property from the existing fence. It would appear that visibility is not a concern for traffic turning at the intersection or for anyone using the driveway of the abutting property. Traffic Division has no concerns with the requested variance. Staff note that there are actually two driveways on the Cherry Street frontage, and it appears that there are two garages. The existing by-law states that a maximum of two driveways is permitted for a corner lot. Additionally, a maximum of one driveway is permitted for each street. Relative to information on file it appears that the detached garage, shown on the survey, existed prior to 1952. Therefore, it appears as though the second driveway may be legal non-conforming if it existed prior to approximately 1972. There is no record or evidence in the file of when the second driveway and garage were built. It is staff's opinion that the requested variance to the Fence By-law is minor in nature and the general intent of the Fence By-law is being met. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the requested variance relative only to the fence as shown on the drawing submitted by the applicant. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 27 - AUGUST 17, 1999 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 regarding this application. Submission No.: F 9~99 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Committee considered a written submission from Mr. S. Habermehl in which he outlines the main reasons for requesting permission for the minor variance. The reasons stated are as follows: 1. Security of children - A three-foot fence would not be sufficient to contain our pre-school children. - Cherry Street is extremely busy and fast. - Due to the Iow income housing and lack of upkeep at the end of Cherry Street, we have noticed people in the neighbourhood that have given us a very uneasy feeling toward letting our children play in the exposed backyard. - We had an incident a couple of years ago where a drunk walked in our back door while we were home. He walked down to the basement and urinated on the floor. A three-foot fence would not be enough of a deterrent to keep these trespassers out of our yard and home. - We have come home to find young neighbourhood children playing in our backyard without supervision. 2. Privacy - Without the fence we have not been able to enjoy our backyard the way we should be able to. Cherry Street is a high vehicular and pedestrian street and a three-foot fence would not shield us from it. - We are also pet owners. The only way we could let our dog outside before the fence was to tie him up. As well, he would bark like most normal dogs at anything that walked by. This I'm sure would irritate the surrounding neighbours just as we would be upset with the barking. Although our dog is small we do not feel that a three-foot fence would be enough to contain him. - The fence also keeps out stray animals, which we are prone to in our neighbourhood. - Noise is also a great concern of ours. A three-foot fence would not provide the same protection from the noisy street as our current fence does. 3. Property Value - With the exception of the Iow income housing area at the end of Cherry Street, we have noticed that most of the neighbors on the street are not only maintaining their own properties but in several cases are doing things to upgrade them as well. We have been told by surrounding neighbors that not only does the fence not bother them but it "adds value" to our house as well as the neighbourhood. One has even taken up a petition on his own initiative, which affirms the present installation of my fence. I have included that petition with this package. - I have spent a great deal of time and effort on adding decorative woodwork to the face of the fence. By doing this my intentions were to make the fence look much more attractive and appealing to those neighbours who face it. - By bringing the fence flush with the shed, it hides a building that currently is showing signs of its age. It is at some point but not in the near future our intentions to refurbish the outside of this building. 4. Visibility - Due to the proximity of our backyard to the corner of Cherry Street and Strange Street, there are absolutely NO visibility problems for cars approaching the corner from any direction in relation to the present height and location of this fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 28 - AUGUST 17, 1999 Submission No.: F 9/99 (Cont'd) 5. By-law Requirements - We have been told that the fence (at its' present height) should be moved back into the yard six feet. With the existing garage running flush with the fence there is a greater look of continuity. The fence by the way is much shorter in height than the building that it runs flush with. If this fence at its current height is moved, we would also be sacrificing space in our backyard that would significantly reduce the children's play area. In light of the above, we request you consider granting a variance and thereby allow the fence to stand as is. The Committee considered the comments of a neighbourhood petition in which residents of Cherry Street and Strange Street stated that we the residents of Cherry Street, Strange Street area wish to offer our concern and support on behalf of Steve Habermehl, who is in the process of constructing a fence around his backyard at 45 Strange Street., Kitchener. It seems there has been some objection to this fence and the City has requested that it be partially dismantled. Mr. Habermehl has gone to a great deal of time and expense to ensure the safety and privacy of his small children. If allowed to complete the fence, he has planned to add a decorative effect which would only improve the appearance of our neighbourhood. If the City is so concerned about appearances and by-laws they might want to focus more of their attention on the creek that crosses the south end of Cherry Street. This area has deteriorated over the past ten years to a state where it is littered and overgrown with ragweed and other noxious weeds. The creek is full of garbage and debris, all within a few hundred feet of homes and school. Crime is on the increase in this area. Is it any wonder we have to build fences to protect our families? Please consider these facts carefully before making a decision. Mr. S. Habermehl presented additional information to the Committee, together with pictures and a conceptual drawing of the proposed landscaping around the fence. Mr. A. Galloway stated that there appeared to be considerable neighbourhood support for the fence and that staff had no concerns with the application. In this regard, he stated that he wished to hear the opinions of the delegations. Mr. C. Hoch stated that he was appearing on behalf of his mother Mrs. E. Hoch, who was also present, and stated that they were of the understanding that the fence was required to be back 15 ft. from the property line. In addition, Mr. C. Hoch also presented pictures of Mrs. Hoch's property to the Committee. Ms. S. Campbell requested clarification as to the location of Mrs. Hoch's property and Mr. Hoch advised that her property was adjacent to and directly behind the subject property. Mr. Hoch further pointed out that Mrs. Hoch's view was obstructed from a window along the side of her house by the fence. He stated that if the fence had been constructed back 15 ft. it would not have affected her window. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if there had been a previous fence in this location and Mr. Habermehl responded that he was uncertain as to whether a fence had existed previously in this location; however, he advised that he had removed a hedge at the time of constructing the existing fence which was at a greater height than the fence. Ms. S. Campbell questioned if he was intending to landscape the fence and Mr. Habermehl responded that he would be doing some landscaping but not until the spring due to finances. Mr. C. Hoch questioned if a permit was required to build a fence and Ms. Given responded that a permit was not required, however, there was a by-law governing the construction of fences COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 29 - AUGUST 17, 1999 which must be complied with. Mr. Hoch questioned why the fence had not been built in compliance with the regulations from the beginning. In response to questioning, Mr. Habermehl indicated that the application before the Committee today had been prompted by complaints. He stated, however, that he had spoken with Mr. Submission No.: F 9~99 (Cont'd) Hoch & Mrs. Hoch previously and thought that they had come to an agreement with regard to the fence. Mr. N. Dahl stated that he was in support of the existing fence and had signed the neighbourhood petition supporting legalization of the fence. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Steve Habermehl requesting permission to legalize an existing fence within 4.6 m (15 ft.) of the lot line along the sideyard abutting Cherry Street, having a 1.82 m (6 ft.) height, rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Part of Lot 24, Plan 329, 45 Strange Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Submission No. F 9~99. 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. Habermehl 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 he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of August, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment