Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-12-12 FENCOA/2000-12-12-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 12, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Britton, Acting Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 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, December 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: FN 2000-014 Mohamed Elmaraghy and Bessma Momani 74 Chandos Drive Lot 15, Re.qistered Plan 1692 Appearances: In Support: Ms. B. Momani 74 Chandos Drive Kitchener ON N2N 3Z4 Contra: Mr. J. Koops 68 Chandos Drive Kitchener ON N2A 3Z4 Ms. J. Haraszthy 75 Chandos Drive Kitchener ON N2A 3Z4 Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. R. Krestianko 88 Chandos Drive Kitchener ON N2A 3Z4 Contra: Neighbourhood Petition This application was originally before the Committee for consideration at its meeting held on November 21, 2000, at which time it was agreed to defer the application to today's meeting to allow further discussions to take place between the applicant and neighbours who have expressed concerns with the proposed fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 39 - DECEMBER 12, 2000 1. Submission No.: FN 2000-014 (Cont'd) 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 Chandos Drive, from the rear lot line and continuing along the side lot line for a distance of 12 m (39.37 ft.), having a height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services ~n which they advised that the variance approval is required only for that portion of the fence within 4.5 metres of the Chandos Drive lot line, beyond which, the fence may be 1.83 metres in height. The applicants wish to construct the fence to provide privacy to the rear yard of their corner property. They state that only a portion of their rear yard can be used for a private amenity area as the northeast portion of the property contains a steep grade and which makes it unusable. The intent of the 0.91 metre maximum height within 4.5 metres of the sideyard abutting a street is to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular visibility. It is noted that the fence is not located within the corner visibility triangle and therefore would not pose a visibility concern for traffic turning at the intersection. In addition, neither the property's driveway nor the neighbouring driveway would be adjacent to the proposed fence and therefore there are no visibility concerns for vehicles using either driveway. It is staff's opinion that the general intent of the by-law is being met. The requested variance is considered minor in nature and it is also considered appropriate development of the property and surrounding residential area. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance application FN 2000-014 as shown on the submitted drawing. 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 location of the proposed fence. 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 written submission of Robert and Jane Krestianko in which they advised that they support their neighbour at 74 Chandos Drive in constructing a wooden fence 0 m from the exterior side lot line adjacent to Chandos Drive and state that the construction will in no way block their view while entering or existing their driveway. In addition, they note that the subject property while being a corner lot is not located at an intersection and believe erecting the fence along the sidewalk will not endanger travellers or pedestrians by blocking the sight of drivers as vehicles are simply turning a curve in the road and not crossing an intersection. The Committee noted a petition submitted on behalf of the residents of Chandos Drive which advised that those who have signed the petition object to a 6 ft. fence to be erected on the subject property because of visibility and safety concerns. Specifically their concerns relate to: a) Children walking on the sidewalk may face oncoming traffic on the bend. The fence will create a blind spot disabling view of both child and driver's actions. b) Snow removal will be forced too close to the roadway. c) The fence changes the overall appearance of the neighbourhood's aesthetics. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 40 - DECEMBER 12, 2000 1. Submission No.: FN 2000-014 (Cont'd) Ms. B. Momani advised that a meeting had been held to address neighbourhood concerns with respect to the fence and during this meeting it was agreed that the applicant would relocate the fence so that it would be setback 1.52 m (5 ft.) from the edge of the sidewalk. Ms. Momani advised that she has been unable to determine exactly where the property line is in relationship to the sidewalk; however, City records indicate that it is approximately 1 - 2 ft. from the edge of the sidewalk. Accordingly, it was determined that the 5 ft. setback would be from the sidewalk so there would be no confusion with respect to where the fence will be relocated. Mr. J. Koops advised that he had attended the meeting and had understood that it was agreed that the fence would be setback 5 ft.; however, the setback is usually measured from the property line and he requested that the decision reflect that the fence would be setback 5 ft. from the property line. Ms. J. Haraszthy stated that she also preferred that precise measurements be established from the property line and further questioned if there was to be any change in the height of the fence. Ms. Momani responded that the height of the fence would be as it exists now which is actually slightly lower than 6 ft. Ms. Momani further clarified that it was intended to relocate the existing fence to within 5 ft. of the sidewalk. The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. J. Given suggested that the Committee consider making its decision based on a 5 ft. setback from the sidewalk and prior to the Committee's decision being brought before Council staff would undertake to determine the exact location of the property line in relation to the fence setback. The Chair advised the applicant that the Committee's decision is a recommendation to City Council and that Council has final approval of the application. In this regard, he pointed out that the Committee's recommendation would be brought before Council on December 18, 2000 at which time Ms. Momani may attend in support of her application. Ms. B. Momani requested that the recommendation to Council be delayed until a subsequent meeting as she and her husband would not be available to attend the December 18th Council meeting. Accordingly, it was agreed that the Committee's decision would be forwarded to the Council meeting to be held on Monday, January 15, 2001. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Mohamed Elmaraghy and Bessma Momani requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 1.22 m (4 ft.) from the exterior side lot line adjacent to Chandos Drive, beginning at the rear lot line and continuing along the side lot line for a distance of 12 m (39.37 ft.), having a height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 15, Registered Plan 1692, 74 Chandos 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 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 41 - DECEMBER 12, 2000 NEW BUSINESS Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: FN 2000-015 Raymond Zimmerer & Dawn Korytko 129 Erinbrook Drive Lot 106, Re,qistered Plan 1648 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Zimmerer 129 Erinbrook Drive Kitchener ON N2E 3B7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to relocate an existing wooden fence 3.72 m (12.2 ft.) from the exterior side lot line adjacent to Bonnybank Court, from the rear corner of the existing dwelling and continuing a distance of 14.08 m (46.2 ft.) to the rear lot line, having a height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.); alternatively, the applicant is requesting that the existing 1.83 m (6 ft.) wooden fence be legalized in its present location. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the application requests to relocate an existing fence 3.72 metres (12.2 ft.) from the curb. Staff have confirmed that the property line is not located at the curb, but actually 3.72 metres (12.2 ft.) in from the curb. This will leave a setback of 0 metres rather than 3.72 metres (12.2 ft.) as noted on the application. The existing fence is located 2.74 metres (9 ft.) from the exterior lot line, and is not in compliance in the present location. The application should be amended to request permission to locate a wooden fence 0 metres from the side lot line abutting a street, having a height of 1.83 metres (6 ft.), rather than the permitted height of 0.91 metres (3 ft.), or alternatively, legalize the existing fence with a 2.74 metre (9 ft.) setback from the exterior lot line and a height of 1.83 metres rather than the permitted height of 0.91 metres (3 ft.) in this location. The property is located on the corner of Erinbrook Drive and Bonnybank Court with driveway access off Erinbrook Drive. The neighbouring property at 6 Bonnybank Court has driveway access on the opposite side of the lot. Vehicular movements for both properties will not be affected by relocating the fence. The proposed fence location will have a 0 metre setback from the side lot line abutting Bonnybank Court, which will still provide clear and unobstructed visibility to the intersection as there is a 3.72 metre (12.2 ft.) boulevard between the fence and curb. Both the existing and proposed fence locations are well outside of the required 4.5 metre (14.76 ft.) visibility corner. The fence location will not affect the neighbouring property and will maintain the intent and purpose of the by-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2000-015 as amended, to permit a 1.83 metre (6 ft.) high wooden fence 0 metres from the side lot line abutting Bonnybank Court. 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 location of the proposed fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 42 - DECEMBER 12, 2000 1. Submission No.: FN 2000-015 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application as amended to permit the fence to be 0 m from the side lot line and enquired if Mr. Zimmerer had anything further to add. Mr. R. Zimmerer advised that when he had purchased the home he was unaware that the existing fence was not in compliance with City by-laws. He stated that he wished to rectify this situation and, accordingly, has made application to the Committee of Adjustment. The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. J. Given advised that she had nothing further to add to the staff report. Ms. Given provided photographs of the subject property showing the existing fence. Ms. J. Given also pointed out that the applicant is requesting one of two options to be approved, being either a 0 m setback from the side lot line or legalization of the fence in its existing location. The Chair enquired which of the two options staff preferred and Ms. Given stated that staff would support either option; however, staff are recommending a 0 m setback from the side lot line. The Chair advised Mr. Zimmerer that the Committee's decision is a recommendation to City Council and City Council has final approval of the application. In this regard, the Chair pointed out to Mr. Zimmerer that the Committee's recommendation will go to City Council on Monday, December 18, 2000, at which time Mr. Zimmerer may appear as a delegation in support of his application. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Raymond Zimmerer and Dawn Korytko requesting permission to relocate an existing wooden fence 0 m from the side lot line abutting Bonnybank Court, from the rear corner of the existing dwelling and continuing a distance of 14.08 m (46.2 ft.) to the rear lot line, having a height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 106, Registered Plan 1648, 129 Erinbrook 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 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th day of December, 2000. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment