Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-10-05 FENCOA\1999-10-05-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 5, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting 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, November 1, 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 12/99 David & Mary Louise Boulanger 109 Greengable Way Lot 83, Plan 1688 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Boulanger 109 Greengable Way Kitchener ON N2N 3H6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.82 m (6 ft.) cedar fence, having a sideyard setback of 0 m from Westforest Trail, rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 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 1.82 meter (6 ft.) cedar fence, having a sideyard setback of 0 meters from Westforest Trail, rather than the required 4.5 meters (14.76 ft.). The fence has been in existence since 1994 and provides an enclosure for a swimming pool. The minimum height requirement for a pool enclosure is 1.6 meters (5 ft.). The height of this fence will comply with the requirement for a pool enclosure. The fence is set well back from the required 15 meter (50 ft.) daylight corner and as such, will not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic at the intersection of Westforest Trail and Greengable Way. The neighbouring property has driveway access from Greencroft Court and the fence will not affect their driveway visibility. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 39 - OCTOBER 5, 1999 1. Submission No.: F 12/99, (Cont'd) The existing fence along the side property line abutting a street is an appropriate use of the subject land. As it will have no impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic or the neighbouring properties, the variance can be considered minor in nature and maintains the intent of the by-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application F 12/99. 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 problems with the proposed fence. 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 of staff, noting that the application is recommended for approval and enquired if Mr. D. Boulanger had anything further to add. Mr. Boulanger indicated that he had received staff comments and had nothing further to add to his application. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of David and Mary Louise Boulanger requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.82 m (6 ft.) cedar fence, having a sideyard setback of 0 m from Westforest Trail, rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) on Lot 83, Plan 1688, 109 Greengable Way, 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. Boulanger that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of November 1, 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. Mr. D. Boulanger enquired what Council would do if he was unable to attend the November 1st meeting. In this regard the Chair stated that, as there were no staff concerns and the Committee has recommended approval, Council is likely to ratify the Committee's decision; however, this would not preclude any other interested party from appearing before Council in opposition to the application and final approval was not guaranteed. The Chair advised Mr. Boulanger that if he was unable to attend the Council meeting on November 1st he did have the option of sending someone else to represent him. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 40 - OCTOBER 5, 1999 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: F 13/99 Christine Thomas 462 Stirling Avenue South Lot 30, Part Lot 31, Plan 652 Appearances: In Support: Ms. C. Thomas 462 Stirling Avenue South Kitchener ON N2M 3J2 Ms. L. Knowlton 466 Stirling Avenue South Kitchener ON N2M 3J2 Contra: None Other: Mrs. P. Gribbon 463 Stirling Avenue South Kitchener ON N2M 3J2 Written Submissions: In Support: Ms. K. Bimm Enforcement Section Department of Business & Planning Services 200 King Street West Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.72 meter (5.66 ft.) wooden fence, having a sideyard setback of 0 m from Highland Road, rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that this application should be amended to show that the fence is located on both the applicants property, as well as City property. In this regard, staff advise that an encroachment request is in circulation. The Legal Department advises that the City cannot permit the encroachment of an illegal structure, therefore, for the fence to remain in its present location there must be an approval of a variance from the Fence By-law. The Fence By-law requires a 4.5 meter setback for a fence higher than 0.9 meters along a property line abutting a street. This requirement is to ensure unobstructed visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles. At the rear of the property is driveway access from Highland Road for the neighbouring property. The applicant has provided a portion of a visibility corner at the neighbouring driveway. After discussion with staff from Traffic and Parking they advise that the full 4.5 meter visibility corner will be required. Once this section of the fence is removed, the adjoining property will have unimpeded visibility to either enter or exit the driveway. The relocation of this section of fence will provide clear sight lines for pedestrians on the sidewalk as well. With the relocation of the fence to provide the visibility triangle, the impact of the fence can be considered minor in nature as it will maintain the intent of the Fence By-law and will not impact on the neighbouring properties. The subject fence is an appropriate use of the property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application F 13/99 as amended to provide a corner visibility triangle at the rear of the property, subject to the following conditions: That the property owner enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener to legalize the location of the fence on City property prior to November 20, 1999. No COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 41 - OCTOBER 5, 1999 Submission No.: F 13/99 (Cont'd) extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the City's Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. That the fence be modified to provide a 4.5 meter visibility corner along Highland Road and 4.5 meters at the driveway of the neighbouring property prior to December 5, 1999 to the satisfaction of Traffic and Parking. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the City's Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. 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 the application and has no concerns with the existing height of the fence, but will require that the fence be removed from the driveway visibility triangle. This measurement is taken from the back edge of the sidewalk and is measured 4.57 m back. The Committee noted the comments of the Assistant City Solicitor in which she advised that the following recommendation would be presented to City Council at its meeting scheduled for October 4, 1999, for enactment: "That, subject to the property owner creating the required driveway visibility triangle and obtaining a minor variance from the Fence By-law, the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an encroachment agreement with the property owner(s) of Lot 30 and Part Lot 31 according to Plan 652, municipally known as 462 Stirling Avenue South, to legalize an existing fence which encroaches 2 feet 6 inches, more or less, onto the Highland Road East road allowance." In addition, the Assistant City Solicitor advised that the height of the existing fence which encroaches onto the Highland Road East road allowance exceeds the permitted height and accordingly the property owner has made application for a minor variance from the Fence By- law and an application for an encroachment agreement permitting the fence to remain on City property. The applicant for a minor variance will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on October 5th. Staff's recommendation to Committee is that approval, if granted, be subject to the creation of a driveway visibility triangle and obtaining permission to encroach onto the road allowance. The appropriate staff has reviewed this encroachment request and has no concerns subject to the property owner creating a driveway visibility triangle and obtaining a minor variance from the Fence By-law respecting the height of the fence. 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 of staff, noting that the application is recommended for approval subject to certain conditions and that staff are also requesting the application be amended to show that the fence is located on both the applicant's property, as well as City property. In this regard, he inquired of Ms. Thomas if she was prepared to amend her application as requested by staff. Ms. Thomas advised that she was prepared to amend her application to show that the fence was located on both the applicant's property and City property. In addition, she stated that she had received a letter from a By-law Enforcement Officer in which she was advised that a staff member of the Traffic & Parking Division was satisfied with the location of the fence. Ms. C. Thomas presented this letter together with pictures of her property to the Committee. The Committee noted the comments in the written submission addressed to Ms. Thomas from Ms. K. Bimm of the Department of Business & Planning Services, Enforcement Section, in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 42 - OCTOBER 5, 1999 which Ms. Bimm advised Ms. Thomas that in speaking with a staff member of Traffic & Parking Division, it was indicated that the visibility was adequate and the fence could be left there for Submission No.: F 13/99 (Cont'd) Committee of Adjustment to legalize and, in conclusion, the fence could remain in its present location pending Committee of Adjustment approval. Ms. C. Thomas reviewed the pictures with the Committee in relation to the survey submitted with the application and advised that the fence had in fact been moved twice as the Traffic Division was not satisfied the first time the fence was moved. The Chair inquired how far back the fence is now located and Ms. Thomas stated that she believed it was 7 ft. 10 inches. In this regard, the Chair enquired of staff how far back the fence was required to be and Ms. J. Given responded that the requirement was 15 ft. Ms. C. Thomas referred to the pictures and pointed out that if the fence was moved back to 15 ft. straight across the visibility triangle this would put an existing hole in the area of the rock garden on the outside of the fence which would create a safety concern. She further advised that placement of the fence as it exists now was based on the letter received from the By-law Enforcement Officer. The Chair stated that he had concern with approving this application as the letter received from Ms. Bimm relays second hand comments from a staff member of the Traffic & Parking Division and the Committee did not have the exact measurements of the current fence location. Ms. J. Given advised that the comments referred to in the letter from Ms. Bimm are superseded by those of Mr. R. Parent as his comments represent the most current of the Traffic & Parking Division. The Chair requested confirmation of staff that the Traffic & Parking Division is still requesting that the fence be located 15 ft. back from the driveway and Ms. Given responded that was correct. Ms. L. Knowlton questioned why the Traffic & Parking Division had not stated this from the beginning and pointed out that Ms. Thomas had done everything up to now that the Division had requested. She further pointed out to the Committee that the fence is located 15.7 ft. back from the rear of the property along Highland Road. Mr. S. Kay stated that there would appear to be confusion between comments made by several members of the Traffic & Parking Division and it would appear that the requirement of a 15 ft. setback is still being requested by the Division. In this regard, he questioned if Ms. Thomas would agree to defer this application to the next meeting to allow her an opportunity to speak with the two members of the Traffic & Parking Division to reconcile this issue. The Chair stated that the Committee appreciated the concerns relating to the hole that would be left open if the fence were moved back; however, the issue of visibility to motorists and pedestrians must also be dealt with. Ms. C. Thomas agreed to defer the application to the next meeting. She further questioned once the fence location issue was resolved, if the height of the fence would be considered separately. The Chair enquired of staff and Ms. J. Given responded that the application does not deal with the height of the fence and as long as it does not exceed 8 ft. in height it does not require a variance. By general consent, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on October 26, 1999, to allow the applicant to resolve the issue of the setback for the visibility triangle with staff of the Traffic & Parking Division. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 43 - OCTOBER 5, 1999 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 5th day of October, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment