The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdjustment - 2000-09-12 FENCOA\2000-09-12-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. B. Dahms, P. Kruse and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. B. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider an application regarding a variance to Chapter 630 (Fences) 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 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, September 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. APPLICATIONS Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le,qal Description: FN 2000-009 Tom & Sandi McQuaid 115 Highland Road West Lot 3, Re.qistered Plan 207 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. T. McQuaid 115 Highland Road West Kitchener ON N2M 3B9 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 0 m from the exterior side lot line adjacent to Vancamp Avenue, having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicants wish to erect the fence to provide a secure yard for their dog and possibly install a pool at a later date. The intent of the 0.91 m maximum height within 4.5 m of the sideyard abutting a street is to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular visibility. Traffic Division comments that they cannot support the application as proposed as they require 4.5 m visibility triangles abutting the driveways on the subject property and on the neighbouring property to the rear. This would ensure adequate visibility for the safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is noted that upon reviewing the application and visiting the site, the subject property does not have a legal off-street parking space. As shown on the submitted drawing, the driveway is located abutting Vancamp Avenue but it does not lead to a legal parking space located behind COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 24 - AUGUST 15, 2000 1. Submission No.: FN 2000-009 (Cont'd) the 6 m setback. Research has determined that the existing driveway could not be considered legal non-conforming. Based on the above comments, staff are of the opinion that the variance is not minor in nature as erecting the fence would make it impossible to establish a legal off-street parking space. Nor does the requested variance meet the intent of the by-law, as two visibility triangles are required adjacent to the driveways. Consequently, the variance cannot be considered appropriate development for the property and cannot be recommended for approval as submitted. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of minor variance application FN 2000-009 as submitted. The Committee noted the comments of the, Traffic & Parking Analyst, in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and cannot support the location and the height of the proposed fence. The fence as proposed would greatly reduce the visibility for motorists exiting either driveway. Therefore, we are recommending that 4.57 m driveway corner triangles be implemented at both the driveways of 115 Highland Road West, and at 63 Vancamp Avenue. Additionally, our investigation showed that the existing hedge located on the shared property line of 63 Vancamp Avenue infringes into the 4.57 m driveway corner triangle and will be required to be cut to be in compliance with the by-law. 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 Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the fence should not be extended within the daylighting triangle. The Region further advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that Planning staff are recommending refusal of the application and the Traffic Division also does not support the location and height of the proposed fence. The Chair commented that the Traffic Division would require 4.57 m driveway corner triangles to be implemented at both the driveways at 115 Highland Road West and 63 Vancamp Avenue and, in addition, the hedge along the shared property line would be required to be cut back so as not to infringe into the 4.57 m driveway corner triangle. The Chair enquired of Mr. & Mrs. McQuaid if they had anything further to add. Mr. T. McQuaid advised that prior to submitting the application they originally had intended to ask for a 4 ft. high fence; however, in speaking with staff they were advised to request at least a 5 ft. fence in the event that they decided to install a pool at a later date. Mr. McQuaid pointed out that the reason they require a fence higher than the permitted 3 ft. is to contain their dog who could potentially jump over a 3 ft. high fence. Mr. McQuaid requested that the Committee consider approving a fence at least 4 ft. in height. Mrs. S. McQuaid further pointed out that they had not become aware of the Traffic & Parking Division's concerns until the Thursday prior to the meeting date and advised that the neighbouring property has an elevated driveway. She commented that she believed the neighbour's driveway would not be impacted by the fence. Ms. McQuaid further noted that the neighbouring property owner claims to be the owner of the hedge along the property line. The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. J. Given advised that the purpose of the 3 ft. height restriction is to ensure clear visibility of oncoming traffic and/or pedestrians. She stated that reducing the requested variance from 5 ft. to 4 ft. would still not satisfy the visibility concerns of staff. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 25 - AUGUST 15, 2000 Submission No.: FN 2000-009 (Cont'd) The Chair stated that in consideration of this type of application the main issue of concern has always centered around the safety of passing pedestrians, in particular children, and passing motorists. The Chair noted that if the application were approved with the required daylight triangle corners it would produce a very oddly shaped fence and given the visibility concerns raised by staff he was not prepared to support approval of this application. Mr. A. Galloway and Mr. P. Kruse were in agreement with these comments. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. FN 2000-009, as applied for by Tom and Sandi McQuaid, requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 0 m from the exterior side lot line abutting Vancamp Avenue, having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 3, Registered Plan 207, 115 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance as requested 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 being maintained on the subject property. Carried The Chair advised Mr. and Mrs. McQuaid that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of September 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber and they may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th day of September, 2000. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment