HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2023-307 - A 2023-085 - 920 Keewatin PlaceStaff Report
Dbvelo n7ent Services Department
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: July 18, 2023
www. kitchener ca
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Interim Manager, Development Review
519-741-2200 ext. 7765
PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT: July 7, 2023
REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-307
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2023-085 - 920 Keewatin Place
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2023-085 for 920 Keewatin Place requesting relief from
Section 4.1 e) of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit an existing accessory structure, a garden
arbour, to be located within a front yard whereas the by-law does not permit accessory
structures in the front yard, generally in accordance with the drawings submitted with Minor
Variance Application A2023-085, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner modify the accessory structure to permit 50% transparency on the side of
the structure facing the North property line, to the satisfaction of the Manager of
Development Review.
2. That the owner relocate the accessory structure to be located a minimum of 0.6 metres
from any interior side lot line, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Review.
3. That the property owner shall complete the work, identified in Conditions No. 1 and No. 2
above, by October 27, 2023. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing
by the Manager of Development Review prior to completion date set out in this decision.
Failure to complete the condition will result in this approval becoming null and void.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review an application for minor variance to permit an existing
accessory structure (Arbour) in the front yard of the subject property.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising that a
Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the application was mailed
to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property and this report was posted to the
City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. City staff
met with adjacent residents on a virtual meeting to discuss the application.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 134 of 230
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and is an irregular shaped lot. The subject
property currently contains a single detached dwelling.
In 2022 the applicant made an inquiry to the Planning Division about the placement of a garden
arbour within the front yard. Staff advised of the regulations that would apply under Zoning By-law
85-1, in effect at that time and under "dual testing" of both Zoning By-laws during an appeal period
that affected (new) Zoning By-law 2019-051 as it applies to Residential zones. Once the applicant
erected the garden arbour, Zoning By-law 2019-051 had come into full force and effect within
Residential zones. Zoning By-law 2019-051 considers this type of feature to be an "Accessory
Structure" based on Section 3 (Definitions). The City's Planning Division has paid the fee for minor
variance for this application to account for the misinterpretation during the appeal period.
City Planning Staff have met with affected residents to understand concerns and try to mitigate
adverse impacts. The transparency of materials facing abutting properties and setback of the
structure were identified as key areas of impact. City Staff have included a recommendation that
includes conditions for changes to be made to the setback of the structure to the North property line
and the transparency of the structure's North side.
Accessory buildings and structures are most commonly sheds or detached garages. The structure
on the subject lands was built as a garden arbour, with a pergola roof and open on 3 sides. The side
facing the interior side lot line to the north has been fitted with fence panels. Staff have received
feedback from neighbours advising of visual impacts due to the structure's close proximity to the lot
line and the visual impact of the fence panels on the side. Staff is recommending 50% transparency
on the side, to maintain a level of openness to be expected from a garden arbour structure. Staff is
also recommending a minimum setback of 0.6 metres to provide an appropriate buffer and mitigate
impacts to the abutting lands.
Figure 1: Location of Subject Property
Page 135 of 230
Figure 2: View of Existing Accessory Structure (June 30, 2023)
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan.
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051.
The purpose of the application is to recognize an existing garden arbour (accessory structure) within
the front yard of a detached dwelling.
Page 136 of 230
Figure 3: View of Existing Detached Dwelling (June 30, 2023)
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
General Intent of the Official Plan
The subject lands are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan. This land use
designation supports a range of low-rise dwellings such as detached dwellings, semi-detached
dwellings, and multiple dwellings. The use of the property as a detached dwelling is not proposed to
change as part of this application. In the opinion of Staff, the request for an accessory structure
within the front yard of a detached dwelling meets the intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the regulation that prohibits accessory buildings and structures in the front yard is to
maintain an aesthetically pleasing streetscape, and to preserve visibility triangles for movement of
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. In regards to an aesthetically pleasing streetscape, Staff
identifies that the accessory structure appears as an extension of the rear yard fence. The structure
protrudes into the front yard only slightly and is roughly in line with the existing front porch and steps.
It is well set back from the street line (approximately 6 metres). In regards to visibility, staff have
confirmed the structure is outside of any Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVTs) on the subject lands
Page 137 of 230
or neighbouring lands. Therefore, Staff are of the opinion that that the requested variance meets the
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The accessory building does not cause any loss of functionality or use of the subject lands or the
abutting lands. The aesthetic effects are minor in the opinion of Planning Staff. Planning Staff is of the
opinion that the effects of the variance are minor.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or
Structure?
The requested variance to recognize an existing accessory structure in the front yard of an existing
detached dwelling is considered appropriate for the use of the land, as it recognizes the entrance to
a fenced rear yard to be slightly within the front yard. The use of the subject lands is maintained, and
the accessory structure does not prevent the use or future redevelopment of abutting lands.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No environmental planning concerns.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No heritage planning concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance.
Engineering Division Comments:
No engineering concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
No parks/operations concerns.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a
Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find
additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property.
CONSULT — Staff met (virtual meeting) with abutting residents to discuss concerns
Page 138 of 230
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
ATTACHMENTS:
No attachments.
Page 139 of 230
Region of Waterloo
June 30, 2023
/_1IROTi1Wer
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener,
ON N2G 4G7
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, Sth Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
(5) 08 WEBER KIT, 15 DELLROY AVENUE
2296342 ONTARIO INCORPORATED
(12) VAR KIT, 30 AND 40 MARGARET
AVENUE ACTIVA HOLDINGS
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting July 18, 2023, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2023 - 076 — 912 Otterbein Court — No Concerns.
2) A 2023 - 077 — 176 Indian Road — No Concerns.
3) A 2023 - 078 — 35 Fifth Avenue — There are no conditions for this application.
However, the owners are advised that the proposed and existing dwelling(s) on
the subject lands would have impacts from the transportation noise in the vicinity.
The owners are responsible for ensuring that the subject development does not
have any environmental noise impacts. In the absence of a detailed noise study,
the staff strongly recommend that all dwelling units be installed with air -ducted
heating and ventilation system, suitably sized and designed for the provision of
central air conditioning. This will avoid retrofit at any later application stage, e.g.
Consent/Condo.
There are no airport -specific concerns for the proposed development. However,
the owners are advised that the subject lands are located within the Airport
Zoning Regulated area and specifically under the runway take-off/approach
surface; and, as such, subject to all provisions of the Airport Zoning Regulations.
4) A 2023 - 079 — 55 Rockcliffe Drive — No Concerns.
Document Number: 4421509
Page 1 of 3
Page 140 of 230
5) A 2023 — 080 — 15 Dellroy Avenue — The Regional staff do not support this
minor variance application. Any structures within the Daylight Triangle (DLT)
and any encroachment under, at or above the ground within the Regional right of
way, including the daylight triangle (including the lands to be dedicated to the
Region), will not be allowed. The buildings and the site must be designed
accordingly.
Airport Zoning (Advisory):
The owners/applicants are also advised that the subject property falls within the
Region of Waterloo Zoning Regulated Area, specifically under the Take-
off/Approach Surface for Runway 08. Using the Region of Waterloo International
Airport Zoning Regulations (AZR) online tool
(https://www.waterlooairport.ca/en/about-vkf/airport-zoning-regulations-
update.aspx), the permitted building height for the subject property is 399.5m
Above Sea Level (ASL), the maximum building height is 75.5m based on a
maximum ground level of 324m ASL. Please ensure that the building heights for
the proposed development comply with the Region of Waterloo Airport zoning and
height restrictions. The Region of Waterloo International Airport AZR also
regulates any construction of towers/cranes for a proposed development. Any
proposed development at this location must ensure that construction
towers/cranes also comply with the Region of Waterloo International AZR.
6) A 2023 - 081 — 333 Pine Valley Drive — No Concerns.
7) A 2023 - 082 — 685 Frederick Street — No Concerns.
8) A 2023 - 083 — 15 Kenora Drive— No concerns/conditions for this application. Staff
note that the subject lands are located within the Airport Zoning Regulated area
and specifically under the runway take-off/approach surface; and, as such,
subject to all provisions of the Airport Zoning Regulations.
9) A 2023 - 084 — 151 Frederick Street — There are no conditions for this application.
However, the applicants are advised that they are responsible for ensuring that
the proposed development does not have any environmental noise impacts (both
on-site and off-site).
10) A 2023 - 085 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns.
11) A 2023 — 086 — 59 Graber Place — Although there are no conditions for this
application, the staff note that there are noise -sensitive land uses, specifically the
backyards of many residential dwellings, in the immediate vicinity of the subject
lands, which may have impacts from the noise from the proposed storage related
activities. The staff recommend that the City staff look into this as deemed
appropriate.
2
Page 141 of 230
12) A 2023 — 087 — 30-40 Margaret Avenue — No Concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
C (226) 753-0368
CC:
Marilyn Mills, City of Kitchener
CofA(a)Kitchener. ca
3
Page 142 of 230
June 29, 2023
Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Marilyn Mills,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting — July 18, 2023
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2023-077
176 Indian Road
A 2023-078
35 Fifth Avenue
A 2023-079
55 Rockcliffe Drive
A 2023-080
15 Dellroy Avenue
A 2023-081
333 Pine Valley Drive
A 2023-082
685 Frederick Street
A 2023-083
15 Kenora Drive
A 2023-084
151 Frederick Street
A 2023-085
920 Keewatin Place
A 2023-087
30-40 Margaret Avenue
Applications for Consent
B 2023-025 97 Second Avenue
B 2023-026 30-40 Margaret Avenue
via email
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted
applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do
not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or
valley slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 150/06 and, therefore, a
permission from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherremana-q rand river. ca or 519-
621-2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River
Page 143 of 230
I
Accessory Structure
920 Keewatin Place, Kitchener
July 04, 2023
To: Members of the Committee of Adjustment:
We are Elaine and Dario Cecchin, and we are writing to express our objection to the application for minor variance.
We have standing in the matter as next door neighbours who are directly affected by the appearance, placement and
impacts of the accessory structure. We also have standing as parties who were denied an arbour when we consulted
with Planning approximately one year ago.
We enquired with Planning about our proposed arbour in fulsome detail and in
writing. We provided a picture of the arbour and a sketch of where it would be
placed. In turn, we received unambiguous guidance from Planning which we
accepted as a responsible resident would.
Yet, the Applicant's request for minor zoning variance is before you not
because of merit above our proposed arbour. Rather, the applications is the
result of an error or miscommunication. While we have no ability for redress,
you are being asked to permit the structure to stand as a result of a mistake,
initially, and as a convenient fix, subsequently. It amounts to an unfair and
arbitrary application of the Zoning Bylaw.
Right: Our proposed arbour
- to be built by Heritage Design
^F"
The situation is rendered even more inequitable when our proposed arbour was significantly less impactful in
mass, visibility, and presence. Whereas our arbour would have been subordinate to the surroundings, the
Applicant's structure imposes heavily on the small front yard and the streetscape.
Page 144 of 230
The Structure's Unsuitability for the Front Yard
We wish to emphasis that our opposition is not simply a question of principle —that, if we can't have it, neither
should they. Rather, we might have been amenable to the variance if the structure had not been so
disproportionately large, visually incongruent, and placed next to the property line such that we cannot escape from
viewing it. If the structure had truly been an arbour, then we would have recognized it as a decorative feature rather
than a hulking built form that intrudes heavily on the streetscape.
There are several reasons to believe that the structure is unsuitable:
1. It is disproportionately large.
2. It has irregular workmanship.
3. There is virtually no setback from our property. It has incurred on our property once, already, and risks re -
incurring.
4. It is not a commonly recognized lawn feature.
5. It has the form, function and stated purpose of a privacy screen.
Finally, due to the interaction of the aforementioned characteristics, we contend that the structure does not pass the
Four Tests. Namely, pressed against the property line, the structure's tall wall -of --wood looms over our front yard
and is poised to incur on our property, again. In our view, it has an antagonistic posture that is unsettling for us and
incompatible with the friendly, family oriented neighbourhood. Although the structure is called an "arbour,"
nothing similar in form and location can be found on a front lawn in the immediate and extended neighbourhood.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the structure's characteristics, we will provide some background about our
proposed arbour that was denied by the Municipality. It is important to understand the impacts on us, in particular
our inability to achieve parity with the Applicant should the variance be permitted.
Background
Our proposed arbour had the intent of concealing the Applicant's hazardous and irregularly built fence that was
erected in 2022. On our side of the fence, nails and screws protruded through the lumber. It posed a risk of injury to
children, pets and wildlife that inadvertently brushed against it.
In addition to the hazards, the fence displayed irregular
workmanship due to a number of characteristics some which are
depicted in the photographs on the following page.
We were counseled to build a parallel fence to conceal the
irregularities and hazards. However, because of the pie -slice
configuration of our lots, the Applicants' fence extended past the
front corner of our house by 13 feet. We were restricted to a three-
foot -fence beyond that point.
Because we could not build an arbour, nor an eight -foot -high
fence, we had to settle for the least desirable option — to build a
three -foot -high fence. While it would not completely conceal the
Applicant's fence, it could at least mitigate the hazards. We spent
a lot of money for a three -foot -high fence that was well-built but
ultimately inadequate for the purpose.
V
N
uJ
2
Page 145 of 230
3
i
Above Left: Nails and screws protruded through the lumber.
Above Right: A 1x6 deck board was used as stringer instead of conventional 2x4 or 2x6 boards. Because it was too
short, a random piece of lumber was joined to it by a diagonal board that also served as a brace.
Even if we were now permitted either to extend an 8 -feet -high fence or build an arbour, we would not be able to
afford it. There was already a considerable expense for the three -foot -high fence. Then, we would have to incur
removal costs. We will be aggrieved monetarily because we will not be able to have parity with the Applicant
without considerable additional expense.
1. The Structure is Disproportionately Large
Constructed of thick timbers including 2x6's and 2x8's, the structure has a heavy, bulky mass. Measured from the top
it has the following approximate dimensions: 8 -feet -high; 7 -feet -wide; and 8 -feet -long. The north -side is enclosed by
lengths of 2 -inch wide boards some of which appear discoloured. With an area of approximately 56 square feet, it
takes up about 15 per cent of the Applicant's front lawn. It projects approximately 12 feet into the front yard.
Page 146 of 230
From the vantage point of our yard, it would not be unreasonable to say that the structure has the constitution and
appearance of a shed or large crate. It presents as a tall "wall -of -wood" that is highly distinctive and jarring at first
sight. Its physical nature suggests something that would belong in the backyard or side -yard, not the front.
The structure's imposing bearing is exasperated by the existing fence. In 2022, the applicant built an 8 -foot -high fence
on their side -yard. Because of the pie -slice configuration of our lots, the Applicant's fence extends 13 feet past the
front corner of our house. As a result, this portion of the fence is fully visible from our yard and the street.
4r
-- X
��� ---- ,—, �� .•waw,
4
The structure's wall -of -wood is aligned exactly with the fence along the property line. The structure and fence are
only about three feet apart, and they are made of similar materials. The structure's bulk and placement corresponds
with the fence to create a striking massing at the front our property.
Together, the fence and structure present as a tall, extended wood barrier. To us, it has a fortress -like appearance
that would more properly fit an industrial or commercial area.
2. The Structure Has Irregular Workmanship
Most of the irregularities stem from when the Applicant built the
structure such that the joists at the top overhung our property. To
correct the incursion, the Applicant cut off the ends and pushed
the base of the structure toward their side. Two metal bars were
hammered into the ground to act as a makeshift brace against the
base — to keep it from moving back. Furthermore, when the
structure was pushed into its current location, the posts on the
south -side appear to have gone askew.
Finally, unrelated to the incursion, some of the boards that enclose
the north -side of the structure are of an inconsistent colour or
shading.
Right: Metal bars inserted into the ground to hold
the structure in place.
Page 147 of 230
Right: The ends of the joists were cut-off.
The joists are asymmetrical and unfinished it
appearance.
Above: The posts appear to have gone askew
after the structure was pushed away from the
property line.
5
Right: Several boards on the left side of
structure are discoloured, perhaps as a result
of creosote.
It should be noted that the posts are not anchored on cement piles as might be expected in the construction of such a
large form. It was built substantively in the driveway and carried to the location by three men. This action may have
resulted in a weakening and destabilization of the posts and frame as the men attempted to maneuver it around
obstacles.
The aforementioned irregularities are on our side of the structure and, accordingly, are highly visible from our property
and street. The workmanship casts the structure as something that would not normally be displayed in a location of
prominence. Rather, it attracts attention and becomes even more incongruent with the streetscape.
Page 148 of 230
IA
3. There is Virtually No Setback from the Property Line
Although the Applicant had exact knowledge of where the property line was located, it was overlooked, remarkably.
As discussed above, the structure was erected such that the joists on top overhung the property line. Instead of
moving the structure the required distance away, the Applicant undertook the unconventional tact of cutting off the
ends of the joists and minimally pushing the base from the property line.
But, the base was not completely lifted above grade when it was pushed away. The two posts on the south -side of
the structure remained partially buried due to the higher elevation in grade at that point. As such, the base became
somewhat compressed when the north -side of the structure was pushed toward the buried posts on the south -side —
which, in turn, resulted in the posts going askew.
To prevent the compressed base from springing back toward the property line, the Applicant took the further
unconventional tact of hammering two metal bars into the ground to act as a makeshift brace to keep the base in
place.
Above Left & Right: Current location of
structure relative to the Applicant's
stringline. The cut joists on top of the
structure extend to the stringline.
Bottom Left: Metal braces at the base of
the structure. This bracing technique does
not inspire confidence for long-term
stability.
Page 149 of 230
There is no margin for error. While the base is a minimally away from the property line, the overhead joists extend
right to it. With little displacement, the structure will likely spring back to our property once again. The metal braces
at the base are tenuous at best. After a few cycles of freeze and thaw, the soil will loosen sufficiently for the braces to
let go. We reasonably fear that the structure will once again incur on our property and a property -line dispute will
ensue.
In addition to the risk of repeated incursion, the lack of setback raises question about whether there is adequate
room for routine maintenance. Grass -cutting is a case in point. It was not until June 9 that the grass was cut on the
north -side of the structure - at about the time the application for minor variance was made. Although routine
landscaping is not inconsequential for neighbours, most
importantly, it is representative of the kinds of expected and
unexpected maintenance issues that can arise. Yet, there is no
ready access to the north -side of the structure, thereby causing
maintenance to be foregone or delayed.
To reiterate, our concern is not simply about landscaping. it is
about gaining proper access to all sides of the structure to
conduct repairs and maintenance that may be required.
7
Finally, with almost zero setback, there is no buffer to
provide a little distance and a visual break. Even if the
Applicant was amenable to installing some
landscaped screening for our benefit, it would not be
possible. As a result, the structure is fully visible from
our yard and the street.
The structure — in its full mass and irregular workmanship - is thrust before our view and the streetscape as
conspicuously as it could possibly be.
4. The Structure is Not a Commonly Recognized Front Yard Feature
Although the application refers to the structure as an "arbour;' we contend that it is inconsistent with a commonly
recognized arbour or similar structure. Arbours may range somewhat in size and style, but they do not resemble the
subject structure. We begin with a definition of an "arbour" from the Mirriam Webster on-line dictionary. An arbour
is defined as "a shelter of vines or branches or of latticework covered with climbing shrubs or vines."
Please refer to photograph below
Page 150 of 230
When "arbour" is queried on the Internet, structures highly
t,r>~:tyd
consistent with the dictionary representation come up. The = man
Family Handyman (on right) is a case in point. The Home Home - Outdoors - Yard 6 Carden Structures
Depot presents further examples.
• See Appendix A for arbours sold by Home Depot.
All of the Home Depot's arbours are similar in size and
constitution as the ones depicted by Merriam -Webster and
the Family Handyman. None come close to the Applicant's
structure.
We recognize that the Home Depot may not be an "authority"
on the form and function of arbours. But, as a large-scale
retailer, it is attuned to the public's understanding of the
subject. Whether an arbour is covered by vegetation or
lattice, it has an open, airy form that is made of light -weight
materials. Its function is to enhance or accent the softscapes —
to be subordinate to the environment and blend with it.
M
What Is An Arbor: What To Know
Before You Buy
(- Kimberley McCee
It is not our intent to dwell on definitions of an arbour and semantics. It is simply a starting place to call into question
the merits of the Applicant's structure as a front yard feature. We have looked extensively throughout the City. In
recent weeks we focused our search on the immediate and extended neighbourhood yet found nothing that
resembled the Applicant's structure. We saw a handful of lawn features that were consistent with Merriam -Webster,
Family Handyman, and Home Depot. But, even these are rare.
• Please see Appendix B for a depiction of the search area and photographs of the 10 arbours located.
Page 151 of 230
The arbour located at 15 Dineen Crt. (Right) is typical of the lawn
features located.
It will be noted that the arbours in our neighbourhood project
minimally into their respective yards. They have a narrow profile —
approximately 2 to 3 feet long and 4 feet wide. Furthermore, the sides
are only partially enclosed. They are constructed of light -weight
components. None abut a neighbouring property. They are truly
decorative or ornamental in nature. Subordinate to the surroundings,
they serve to accent and enhance the softscapes.
There seems to be an intuitive understanding among neighbourhood
residents of what comprises an appropriate front -yard feature. There is
also a commonly held understanding that large built forms belong in
the back- and side -yards, not the front.
We do not exaggerate when we say the Applicants' structure is a
complete outlier in form and bulk that can be found in no front yard
in our neighourhood.
1]
Lawn feature at 15 Dineen Crt.
5. The Structure has the Form, Function, and Stated Purpose of a Privacy Screen
In the application for minor variance, the Applicant suggests that the structure has a dual purpose: esthetics and
privacy. The Applicant writes, "the initial purpose of the arbor was to enhance our property and replace the privacy
trees that were planted a couple of years ago..." The alignment of the structure with our patio area would tend to
support the Applicant's stated purpose of privacy. The north side of the structure is enclosed completely by the "wall -
of -wood." We cannot see beyond the "wall -of -wood".
The appearance and location of the structure would fit
the definition of Privacy Screen in the Municipal Code:
...a visual barrier used to shield any part of a
yard from view from any adjacent parcel of land
or highway.
The definition proceeds to state that a building, trellis,
arbor, pergola, arch, gazebo, or obelisk are not
considered privacy screens. However, as explained
above, we would argue that the structure is not
actually an arbour or commonly recognized lawn
feature. A genuine arbour might be partially enclosed by vines and plants or by trellis, but not completely covered by
lumber. In our estimation, the Applicant's structure was minimally given some attributes of a lawn feature of sorts as
a pretence for a privacy screen.
Below: Neighbourhood arbours that help provide privacy in conjunction with plants and bushes.
Page 152 of 230
Left: 179 Carson
Drive
Right: 280 Keewatin Avenue
10
Whereas an arbour that serves the purpose of privacy is accessorized with climbing vines and plants, the
Applicant's structure attempts to achieve privacy by itself. For that reason, the structure must assume the form
that it has — a tall wall -of --wood.
A variance under the Zoning Bylaw for a structure that has the appearance, size, and stated purpose of a privacy
screen is to create a violation under the Municipal Code. The proper replanting of a few cedar trees would provide a
more esthetically pleasing form of privacy.
Moreover, there is risk of the structure becoming a full-fledged fence where the 3 -foot gap between the structure and
existing fence is filled with a small panel of wood. The structure's wall -of -wood and the fence are lined -up squarely
along the property line. The materials are the same. It would not take much for the small space to be covered. There
would result an 8 -foot -high fence that projects 12 feet into the front yard — all under the pretext of an "arbour".
JAW,
7�i�
Above Left: The distance between the privacy barrier
and fence is only about 3 feet. They are aligned
directly on the property line.
Above Right: A simulated but realistic depiction of
the gap if it is filled in.
Page 153 of 230
Even as a privacy screen, alone, we argue that there are more appropriate, less visually incongruent options
available. In the same search area for arbours discussed in part 4 above and in Appendix B, we found even fewer
privacy screens on front lawns — only three. They are illustrated in the photographs below.
Left: 18 Strathcona Cr.
Right: 8 Nipigon St.
Neither of the three abut a nieghbour's property and they
project minimally into the front yard. Further, with thin
profiles, they are barely noticeable. We do not know whether
these structures are strictly permitted according to the
Municipal Code. But, even if they were in violation, we see
how an exception or variance would be allowable and even
desirable. They are tasteful and do not present unacceptable
visual impacts on adjoining properties.
45 Nipigon St.
11
Above: 331 Carson Dr.
The privacy screen on the left at 45 Nipigon St. is actually in
the side -yard, not the front. It is, however, an example of a
privacy screen that would be a good fit on the front yard,
likely with the full concurrence of neighbours given the
quality of its build.
As a privacy screen, the subject structure is a complete
outlier and over -the -top. Nothing similar could be found in
our search area. More appropriate options are available. A
less bulky form could be set further within the subject
property rather than pressed up against the neighbour's
yard. Indeed, it would be rare to find a tall wall -of -wood
on the property line either as a privacy s(Xeen 194 OYr230
12
The Four Tests
The structure's various characteristics render it an inappropriate form for the Applicant's front yard. We do not
believe that structure meets the requirements of all parts of the Four Tests for minor zoning variance.
1. Is the proposed variance in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?
Whereas accessory structures should normally be restricted to back and side -yards, there may exist circumstances
related to size, appearance or location that would not result in grave incompatibility with the Zoning Bylaw if they
were built on front yards.
• Because of its disproportionate size and placement next to the property -line, the subject structure is highly
visible to the adjacent property (us) and the street, especially on the north and east sides. There is no
screening or buffering to moderate its visual encroachment on the neighbouring property and streetscape.
• The irregular workmanship does not lend itself to a place of prominence such as the front yard.
• Its bulk and the wall -of -wood that encloses the north side give the structure the constitution and appearance
of a shed, or a crate, or otherwise a built form that would be expected on a back or side -yard, not the front.
• The structure cannot be considered to be an arbour or commonly recognized lawn and yard feature. Rather
than accenting the small, landscaped area, it dominates it.
2. Does the proposed variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
The Official Plan requires that new buildings, additions, and/or modification to existing buildings are appropriate in
massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established
neighborhood.
• Whereas a structure that is truly an arbour or commonly recognized lawn feature might normally be
compatible with the streetscape and the community character, the subject structure is a complete outlier.
Nothing of its size, bulk and appearance can be found on a front yard in the immediate and extended
neighbourhood.
• In correspondence with the existing fence, the structure presents as something fortress -like — an entrance
into a barricaded property that would more properly fit a commercial or industrial area. The structure
dominates its environment rather than being subordinate to it.
• The irregular workmanship sets the arbour in stark contrast to the modest, but well-appointed yards of the
neighbourhood.
• The totality of characteristics related to size, appearance and placement casts the structure as highly
incongruent and disharmonious with the streetscape and neighbourhood character.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?
We believe that the structure is unacceptably detrimental to the adjacent property (us) and the larger public interest.
• Unmitigated by buffering and screening, the structure's bulk, irregular workmanship and placement next to
the property line present an inescapable visual affront to the next door neighbour (us).
• Difficulty accessing the north -side of the structure may cause required repair and maintenance to be
foregone or delayed.
• The structure has already incurred on our property. Due to the unconventional and tenuous manner in which
the structure is held in place with virtually no setback, the structure is poised to re -incur on our property.
Page 155 of 230
13
• The structure has the form, function and stated purpose of a privacy screen. To permit a variance under the
Zoning Bylaw is to cause an infraction under the Municipal Code. Privacy can be readily achieved by a few
cedar trees or by more appropriate options as currently exist in the neighborhood.
• A variance would create an unfavourable precedent for similar structures to be built on front yards where
none currently exist.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
In light of the multiplicity of issues described in our submission, we contend that the variance is major in nature. The
structure righty belongs in a back or side -yard as required by the Zoning Bylaw. We do not find any mitigating quality
in terms of appearance, size, and placement that reasonably suggests it is suitable for a front yard.
The Applicant, themselves, appear to have recognized that the structure has
a harsh aspect that needed to be tempered. To that end, on their side only,
the Applicant installed a decorative metal insert on the interior of the north -
side wall. While the Applicant may enjoy some relief from the structure's
visual impact, we and the neighbourhood must endure an entirely different
vista. From our side, the view is one of a large, looming wall -of -wood that is
accentuated by irregular workmanship.
The form and appearance of the structure is true to its purpose as revealed
,
on the application for minor variance. The application states that the purpose ti
for the structure is "to enhance our property..." and "making our property
much better." Although there is a concern for the enhancement of the};j
Applicant's own property, no mention is made of concern for other
properties.
AGO M -
Above: ornamental metal insert. Once the north -side was
covered with lumber, the insert became visible only for the
Applicants.
The Applicant has the right to enhance their property. But, it cannot be
done at the expense of other properties. In the design, construction,
and placement of the structure, the Applicant needed to show a
modicum of regard for the impacts on the neighbour and the
neighbourhood.
We are left to accept that the structure was built with the same
disregard for the impacts on others as the fence with protruding nails.
in our view, the structure — like the fence — has an antagonistic, harsh
posture that is exceedingly inconsistent with the friendly, family-
oriented neighbourhood. Pressed against the property line, it
presents as an unsettling visual encroachment that looms over our lot
and threatens to incur on it.
Page 156 of 230
14
Conclusion
Although our opposition it is not solely a question of principle and inequity, these factors are not inconsequential,
either. To allow the Applicant's structure to stand in error would be highly inequitable when our proposed structure
was significantly more consistent with commonly recognized lawn features. Because we could not build an arbour, we
accepted a less desirable option at great expense. In fairness, we should be allowed to build an arbour of own with
the applicable fees waived. But, even if we could have parity with the applicant, we cannot afford it. We have too
much money already sunk with the three-foot fence. We would be monetarily aggrieved if the Applicant was allowed
to keep the structure under the circumstances that ours was denied.
We return to the structure's merit as a front yard feature.
It is difficult to fathom how the Applicant's structure could be permitted on an exemption basis in light of the
reasonable alternatives:
• Our proposed arbour that was denied.
• Commonly recognized lawn features in the media/Internet.
• Arbours and Lawn features that currently exist in the neighbourhood
M
Right: Lawn feature we
were denied
Left: Lawn features found in the
neighbourhood — 236 Nomad Ct.
Below Right: Commonly
recognized lawn feature
Below left: What is asked to
stand as an acceptable front
lawn feature
Nama-Ouldaefa- Yard•Gafdf St—t 1
What Is An Arbor: What To Know
Before You Buy
Kimberley McGee
Page 157 of 230
The Applicant's structure is "over -the -top" in comparison to either of the three alternatives. It is a leap in mass, size
and visual encroachment into the streetscape that cannot be reconciled with even a generous notion of what might
be allowed.
To permit the structure to remain as a convenient fix to an error would result in an inappropriate application of the
Zoning Bylaw given the imbalance with what was disallowed and what is currently found in the neighbourhood.
We are sympathetic to the fact of an error. Municipal employees have a difficult, complex, job in which multiple
interests need to be balanced. We all make mistakes in our professional lives. Our concern is not that an error was
made but rather with the way that you are asked to resolve it.
It cannot be overlooked that the Applicant sought guidance before building the structure. This is not a situation in
which permission was requested after the fact. Rather, this is a case in which there was ample opportunity to
influence the outcome. Even if the Applicant insisted on building a lawn feature of sorts, Planning could have
counselled the Applicant about building a structure in a manner that better considered the interests of neighbours,
thereby making the structure more amenable to a minor variance. Even then, the $1,600 application fee for minor
variance would have presented an impediment.
But, the fee was waived, and the structure was built without any influence from Planning that might have led to a
moderation in some of the structure's questionable attributes — disproportionate bulk, wall -of -wood, placement on
the property -line. With Planning's influence, for example, the structure could have been built with a setback to allow
some visual separation and room for screening to temper the "wall -of -wood." Instead, the structure was built with
only the Applicant's interests fulfilled —to enhance "their" property, solely.
We ask the Committee of Adjustment to reject the request for minor variance as a convenient fix to an impactful
problem. This situation calls for a complete "do -over" — to restore the original conditions and to proceed from that
point in a deliberate and methodical manner that balances all interests. Yes, the Applicant may need to be given
compensation for time and materials. This would be fair and appropriate.
In that way, a more suitable lawn feature would result, if any at all. It would also remove the appearance of a
pecuniary interest. There would be no reason to think that the application is being approved as a financial
consideration — that the structure is approved less on its merits and more so to avoid a financial outlay for a mistake.
To preserve the integrity of the planning process, including the fair application of the Zoning Bylaws, this matter
should be resolved by ordering the structure removed with appropriate restitution to the Applicant. The process
should be re -commenced with proper guidance and the option for the Applicant to proceed to a minor variance in
consequence of the guidance and the requirement to pay the $1,600.00 fee.
We look forward to addressing the Committee of Adjustment at the forthcoming meeting. We would be glad to
respond to any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Elaine and Dario Cecchin
15
Page 158 of 230
Irl l■r
Irl
Iry
Ir, 1■1
Ir, Irl
Irl 6.1
vna Carolina 57"L x 24W x 88"H
Embossed Vinyl Arbor, Brown
MOdel # VA84070 I SKU # 1000778810
**** (251
$517
V FREE DoM y
J FREE ship ihint,,h r
Appendix A — Arbours Sold by Home Depot
Peak Gardenware 97 -inch H x 24 -
inch Depth Steel Garden Arbor
(Adjustable Width 36 -inch, 42-inc...
Madel # 7461 I SKU # 1001208495
**** (12)
$149 ...
V DeIwm Ti WYr mohP*
V tetmihener
Costway 8'4" High x 47" Wide Steel
Garden Arch Rose Arbor Climbing
Plant Garden
Medd # 642922 I SKU # 1001698190
*tt>M* Q7
$149
�/ Stdndar0 Def1'etY
V FKEE Shp Ip K#chi—
vita Springwood 63"1 x 46"W x
92"H Cedar Arbor, Golden Brown
MocM * VA68900 I SKU # 1001535017
R**** (I)
$1,239 0°ad
V Standard Daf—y
W FREE Shipt6Kitchener
Visa Westwood 47"L x 18"W x 86"H
Cedar Arbor. Golden Brown
Model#VAOUN l SKU#100071L845
*R**• (159)
$469 10—ch
V FREE 6Nr+ary
V FREE Ship to KIII het
❑ cohtnale n ❑ Compare t7 ❑ compete Q ❑ compare Q ❑ compare C7
vna Athens 39"L x 23"W x 81"H
Vinyl Arbor, White
MOWI VA60111 I SKU # 1000791736
iii *+ (229)
vna Rosewood 47"L x 24'W x 89"H
Cedar Arbor, Golden Brown
Model # VA68894 I SKU # 1 0 0 0 71184 6
****. r112)
vna London 45"L x 21"W x 84"H
Vinyl Arbor_ White
Madel # VA66102-1 I SKU # 1000693972
$249 P1.
V FREE DeWeu
V FREE Srap M KKll—
V 7 Compare
Vita Collingwood 43"L x 23"W x 81"
CodarArbor, Golden Brown
Model # VA68893 I SKU # 1001719606
****s (2)
vita Vienna 49"L x 24"W x 92"H
Vinyl Arbor. White
Model # VA68144 I SKU # 1000701733
****, (57)
$449
V FREE Dehh,,y
V FREE Stop to Mcheher
-1
-1
IE _ r
��I 1 f�
II� ��4I
Vita Dublin 45"L x 21"W x 82"H
Vinyl Arbor, While
Moda#VA68101-1 I SKU#1000770814
****• (891
Vita Sierra 39"L x 23"W x 81"H
Embossed Vinyl Arbor, Brown
Model # VA68106 I SKU # 10111441908
****. (21)
16
G% ❑ Compare V ❑ C-- Q ❑ Compare V
Outsunny 84 75" x 19" Garden Arch
with Gate Door Decor Climbing
Planter Frame
Model # 844287 1 SKU 9 1001698806
**i (3)
$329 °gad,
✓Sbadard Dell
✓ ME Shp to nghiii
vna Fairfield 58"L x 32"W x 87"H
Vinyl Arbor. White
Mods # VA84225 I SKU * 1001441905
*** (2>
$929earn
V Standard Defter'
J FREE Ship to Ktchmer
vna Fairfield 581 x 32'W x 87"H
Vinyl Arbor with Trim Kit. White
Madel # VA84228-2 I SKU # 1000732022
**** (1)
$1,029 O
V FREE Shp to Kdchom
❑ cohoii. C2 ❑ compma q ❑ compare CO ❑ compare q ❑ compare 7�
vna 45"L x 23"W x 34" H Cardiff vna Wesihaven 57"L x 24"W x 88"H
Vinyl Arbor. While Vinyl Arbor White
1
vna Nantucket Deluxe 60"L x 30"W
x 94"H Vinyl Arbor, White
vita Florence 49"L x 24"W x 88"H
Vinyl Arbor White
Page 159 of 230
101
vna Livingston 49"L x
24"W x 92"H
Vinyl Arbor.. White
1
vna Nantucket Deluxe 60"L x 30"W
x 94"H Vinyl Arbor, White
vita Florence 49"L x 24"W x 88"H
Vinyl Arbor White
Page 159 of 230
17
Appendix B - Search Area for Similar Structures
We looked extensively throughout the City of Kitchener to determine the kinds of garden features could be found on
front yards. We found no structure similar to the Applicant's. In recent weeks we focused our search to the
immediate and extended neighbourhood as depicted in the map below. The search area consisted of Grand River
North and most of Heritage Park. It is bounded by Otterbein on the north, Ottawa to the east, River and Carson on
the south, and Rothsay on the West.
0
GRAND
ROVER NORT,
4
Gealnd Rtrt! Artm _.. .
Greot Ck
cowl.rc— "
Keewatin Place
We found only a handful of arbour -like structures on front yards. And, none were of the mass and size of the subject
structure. The following page illustrates the entirety of arbours found -10 of them.
It will be noted that they project minimally into their respective front yards. They have a small provifile —
approximately 2 to 3 long and 4 feet wide. Furthermore, they are not closed -in, but mostly open. They are
constructed of light -weight components. Finally, none abut a neighbouring property.
Page 160 of 230
Arbours & Lawn Features Found in the Neighbourhood
280 Keewatin Ave.
105 Westchester Dr.
179 Carson Dr.
215 Lorraine Ave.
236 Nomad Ct.
75 Tecumseh Cr.
18
Page 161 of 230
48 Denlow St.
15 Dineen Crt.
82 Strathcona Cres.
547 Otterbein Rd
19
�1
Page 162 of 230
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Accessory Structure at 920 Keewatin Place
Good morning, Mr. Stevenson.
I am writing for an update on this matter. It was suggested by Officer Stott that I correspond directly with you because
your department is involved once again.
After the matter was referred to your department by Enforcement, the accessory structure was deemed to be in
violation of the zoning by-law. Officer Stott was going to be working with Mr. Bradbury to seek compliance.
Subsequently, we heard that the matter was escalated to the Director of Enforcement. Now, it's back to you, apparently.
We initiated the complaint about 7 weeks ago when we saw that Mr. Bradbury built a structure on his front lawn that
was the same as one that we had been previously denied. As such, we rightly have standing in this matter and merit
being kept informed. Yet, seven weeks have gone by and the only feedback we've received is contradictory and
ambiguous.
Respectfully, could we please receive a substantive update as soon as possible.
Please refer to the attachment for some photographs and commentary.
We'd be glad to meet with you. Alternatively, you may call us at 613-922-1893.
Sincerely,
Page 163 of 230
Elaine and Dario Cecchin
Page 164 of 230
Appendix — Photographs
The Fence at 920 Keewatin Place
I
Mr. Bradbury built a fence in the spring of 2022 in the side yard between our two properties. On our side of the
fence there are countless nails and screws that protrude through the lumber along the entire length. In addition to
the hazards, the fence was rendered exceedingly unsightly by a number of characteristics some of which are
depicted by the photographs below. The hazards and disfigurements give the impression of being purposely done.
i
I
R
Right:
The protruding nails are a hazard to children, wildlife
and pets that might inadvertently brush up against the
fence.
A real estate agent advised us to conceal Mr.
Bradbury's fence with one of our own.
Accordingly, we built an 8 -foot -high fence parallel to
Mr. Bradbury's. Because of the pie -shaped
configuration of our lots, Mr. Bradbury's fence
extended past the corner of our house by eight feet. As
such, our 8 -foot -high fence could only be built to the
corner of our house.
Left:
A 1x6 deck board was used as stringer instead of
conventional 2x4 or 2x6 lumber. Because it was too short, a
random piece of lumber was joined to it by a diagonal board
that also served as a kind of brace against the ground.
Metal posts resembling parking sign posts were used instead
of conventional 4x4 or 6x6 posts. As a result, the fence
wobbled and shook. It needed to be braced in unconventional
methods in several locations.
a
I
0
Page 165 of 230
Our Fence and Intended Pergola
Right:
The intent of the pergola was to hide the
portion of Mr. Bradbury's fence that extended
past the corner of our house, where we were
limited to a three-foot- high fence. Because
we could not build a pergola, we built the
fence to only a three-foot height. It was not
ideal but at least it mitigated the hazards.
We have consistently abided by Municipal by-
laws and the guidance given us by Planning
and Enforcement.
Even if we were now allowed to build a
pergola or 8 -foot -high fence, we would not
be able to afford it. Our resources were
expended on the three -foot -high fence, which
was expensive. To install a pergola or higher
fence, we would have to incur the sunk costs
of the existing fence and the cost of its
removal — all on top of the cost of the
pergola.
M
i
Left:
This is the pergola that we wanted built by
Heritage Design — a highly reputable and skilled
company. It has small foot print — about 4 feet by
4. Its sides were mostly open. It had the
appearance of an ornamental and decorative
feature rather than a "structure".
Mr. Bradbury's pergola is nowhere in the same
league in appearance, design, and quality of
build as this one. Yet, ours was not permitted.
In fairness to the municipality and the planner
who counselled us, to the best of our research,
neither our intended pergola nor Mr. Bradbury's
can be found in a front yard of a residence in the
City of Kitchener. We looked extensively, but
could find none, remarkably.
Page 166 of 230
3
The incursion of Mr. Bradbury's Pergola on our Property
After Mr. Bradbury built his fence in May 2022, he
retained some of the property line markers, presumably
for the pergola he installed most recently.
yj'Te
�C
1r �� y41t 9/�f
h ter.,
1�
i .i
In August 2021, we had our property surveyed in
preparation for landscaping later in the year. The
survey was conducted by JD Barnes - a certified
Ontario land surveyor.
Mr. Bradbury relied on the surveyed lot line to install
his fence posts. The pieces of rebar covered by water
bottles were inserted by Mr. Bradbury for his current
and future reference of the lot line.
Mr. Bradbury's property line markers existed at the time the
pergola was built.
As such, Mr. Bradbury knew exactly where the property line was
located
Page 167 of 230
4
We recreated the property line from metal markers embedded
in the ground by the surveyor.
When a straight piece of lumber is extended perpendicular to
the property line, it is seen that the arbour on the front side
crosses the property line by approximately 4 inches.
When a straight piece of lumber is extended perpendicular to
the property line, it is seen that the arbour on the other side
crosses the property line by about 2 inches.
w
Page 168 of 230
The Pergola is Unsightly and Poorly Built
Mr. Bradbury saw us scrutinize the placement of the
pergola relative to the property line.
He obviously concurred with our findings because he
soon after cut the tips of the arbours and pushed the
pergola toward his house. Two metal bars were
hammered into the ground to keep the structure
from being pulled back.
Note: the pergola is not anchored on cement piers. It
is a floating structure.
5
Metal Rods
What kind of construction technique is this? It does not even rise
to the level of amateurish. It will not hold the pergola in place
indefinitely. The pergola will slide back onto our side, eventually,
when the soil loosens.
There is potential for a property line dispute. Mr. Bradbury has
incentive to keep the structure on his side while this matter is
under consideration. If it is decided in his favour, we anticipate
that Mr. Bradbury will not rectify another incursion outside of
litigation or the threat thereof.
Cut Ends
The cut arbours render the structure asymmetrical and
unfinished. The arbours on Mr. Bradbury's side remain
intact. To build a pergola in this manner would be shameful
to a professional.
Right:
The pergola's posts on Mr. Bradbury's side went askew after
the structure was pushed onto the right side of the property
line. They are no longer perpendicular to the top of the
structure and the ground.
Page 169 of 230
Right: the pergola takes up about one-third of the
remaining front yard. It is disproportionately large and
overbearing.
R
Left: The completed version of the pergola has vertical
boards that completely enclose the side. Some of the
boards are defaced by creosote.
It has the appearance of a wooden crate.
Below Left: String line and rebar are becoming increasingly obscured by uncut grass on Mr. Bradbury's side. A tripping
and impalement hazard is in the making.
Below Right: While our side of the pergola is becoming increasingly unsightly due to the overgrown grass, Mr.
Bradbury's side is short and neat.
I
How does Mr. Bradbury intend on cutting the overgrown grass on his side of the pergola? As it stands, the grass is
on the cusp of a Property Standards violation. Mr. Bradbury will not be allowed on our property to cut the grass.
Similarly, we will not incur on Mr. Bradbury's property. Will the municipality enforce the Property Standards bylaw
and how will Mr. Bradbury comply?
Page 170 of 230
The Pergola is in effect an 8 -foot -high Fence in Disguise
7
The distance between the pergola's post
and that of the fence is only about 3-4 feet.
They are aligned directly on the property
line. We would not be surprised to see the
gap filled with a short section offence in
the near future.
Once the gap is bridged, there is created an
8 -foot -high fence that extends about 12 feet
into the front yard.
The pergola is looking increasingly like a
fence.
Left: A simulated but realistic depiction of the
gap after it is filled in.
Will the municipality enforce the Fence bylaw?
Page 171 of 230
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: Submission to Committee of Adjustment Re: A 2023 085 - Application for Minor Variance
Date: July 9, 2023 11:49:31 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
As homeowners and residents of Keewatin Place in Kitchener, we are writing in regard to the
application for a Minor Variance to the Zoning Bylaw, A 2023 - 085, 920 Keewatin Place. We
object to the application, and respectfully ask that the Committee of Adjustment fully and
completely reject the request.
Our understanding is that permission was sought by the homeowner(s) of this property to
construct a garden arbour in the front yard of the property. We further understand that
permission was granted erroneously by the City of Kitchener. As such, a structure was erected
on the property owner's front lawn that does not meet what we understand to be the standards
and rules of the Zoning By-law regarding the installation of accessory structures in the front
yard of a residential property.
In addition to this, the structure in question does not in any way, shape or form resemble what
would commonly be recognized as a garden arbour. It is more akin to an unenclosed storage
shed, a fence extension, a lean-to, or a shelter. From our property sightline, and in our opinion,
what the homeowner has erected appears to be neither decorative, nor functional, and in no
way enhances the neighbourhood or dare we say, the homeowner's property itself. It is an
obtrusive, unattractive, over -sized, imposing wooden structure, and serves to detract from the
otherwise attractive, well-groomed streetscape of our small Court.
We purchased this home approximately five years ago, and have been impressed with the
generous consideration shown by other neighbours on our Court, when landscaping and
enhancements were planned and implemented on their properties. We know for a fact that
some neighbours have gone to significant additional expense with their projects to ensure that
the work done not only meets or exceeds all Zoning Bylaws and municipal rules and
requirements, but is also unobtrusive, attractive, non -disruptive, and at the end of the day, only
adds to the value and enjoyment of neighbouring homeowners' properties through quality of
design, workmanship and placement.
In our opinion, the sightlines of the so-called "garden arbour" at 920 Keewatin Place, from the
street, and from the front porches and patios of others on this small, friendly street, do nothing
to enhance the streetscape, and by extension, the property values of others on the Court.
The structure also appears to be extremely tight to the property line. We do not profess to be
experts in these matters, but we believe "set -backs" are required and rigorously enforced. We
question the correctness of the set -back of this particular structure.
If these homeowners wish to add a small garden arbour to their property that abides by the
City of Kitchener's recognized and existing criteria for an allowable front yard structure, we
would likely have no objection. Since we have lived here, the homeowner(s) have been
attentive to the landscaping and upkeep of their front yard. But to do so, from our perspective,
they would need to remove the large, obtrusive structure they have erected under the guise of
being a garden arbour and re -start the process (approval, design and construction). If they are
granted "special permission" to keep, or even modify, the structure as it exists currently, it
Page 172 of 230
would be highly unfair to others in the neighbourhood who HAVE, in good faith, respectfully
complied with the rules and by-laws in place (even when incurring additional expense to do
so) and it could set a dangerous precedent for future projects in our immediate community,
and the City at large.
In closing, we request that the Committee of Adjustments DENY the applicant's request for a
minor variance and further instruct the homeowner(s) to completely remove this large,
obtrusive structure from their front yard, without delay.
Thank you.
Ron and Kathleen Clark,
Page 173 of 230
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Subject: 920 Keewatin Place - application for a minor zoning variance
Date: July 10, 2023 12:44:45 PM
To whomsoever this may concern:
We are writing today in reference to the Application for a Minor Variance to the Zoning
Bylaw A 2023-085 for 920 Keewatin Place as homeowners and residents of the court.
As we understand it, permission was sought by the homeowners of 920 Keewatin Place to
construct some sort of arbour on the front yard of their property and that the permission was
granted in error by the City in, what we perceive to be in violation of the Bylaw. We have
always felt very welcome on this court, and are very proud of our courteous and well meaning
neighbors, who have become our friends and everyone is very respectful of each other's
properties and we believe that adds to our enjoyment of the court.
So, in our opinion, as the arbor adds no value at all to the streetscape in any way and does in
fact not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law, granting permission to keep the structure
as is might be setting a bad precedent for future projects on our little court and the community
at large. And it would be unfair too, to the otherwise very respectful and law abiding denizens
of the court.
In conclusion, we respectfully ask that the Committee of Adjustments consider denying the
application.
Thank you.
With best regards,
Karthik Ramakrishnan and Roshini Sreenivas
Be at least as kind to the Earth as it is to you. Do not hit print.
Page 174 of 230
From: _
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: 920 Keewatin PI
Date: July 10, 2023 9:14:16 PM
To whom it may concern, I am opposing the
Minor variance to the zoning by-law to permit an accessory structure (Garden Arbour) within
the front yard at 920 Keewatin Pl.
I live in the neighborhood and I have seen the structure. I can not describe what it even is. It
definitely is not an Arbour. There is clearly a by law against structures in front yards for a
reason and the wood wall is an eye sore. I have seen many other beautiful Arbours in the
neighborhood but this is not one of them.
Odette Lehman
Eff�ao Mail on Android
Page 175 of 230
Chantelle James and Ian Harrower
July 11, 2023
Committee of Adjustment
City Of Kitchener
200 King St W
Kitchener, ON
Regarding: variance request A 2023-085 for 920 Keewatin PI, requesting variance for accessory
building (garden arbour) to be built in the front yard
We strongly object to the applicant's request for the already -installed front yard structure.
First, this structure is not a garden arbour but a fence. Garden arbours are lightweight, airy
structures with open sides designed for plants to grow on. The structure the applicant has built
is extremely large and is obviously designed as a privacy fence. From most angles, it looks like
a fence. According to section 630.1.8 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code, a fence is defined
as:
a barrier, including one for noise attenuation, or any structure except a
structural part of a building, that wholly or partially screens from view, encloses or
divides a yard or other land or any portion thereof, prevents access by people or
animals, or marks or substantially marks the boundary between adjoining land. A fence
shall include:
(a) every post, door, gate, or closure that adjoins, abuts, or attaches thereto;
(b) a railing, guard, or structure joined to, or directly around or on a deck or porch
provided that such material does not form a component of a fully enclosed deck
or fully enclosed porch; and
(c) any component or element that physically or visually combines with or appears to
contribute to the use or purpose of the fence whether attached thereto or self -
supported.
This structure meets the definition of subsection (c) and therefore should be subject to the
fencing bylaw. Note that this structure cannot be considered a privacy screen, since according
to section 630.1.21 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code:
"privacy screen" means a visual barrier used to shield any part of a yard from view from
any adjacent parcel of land or highway. Notwithstanding any other portion of this
definition, a privacy screen shall not include:
(a) self -supported hedges, trees, or other vegetation;
(b) a building, trellis, arbor, pergola, arch, gazebo, or obelisk; or
(c) anything 8 feet (2.44 metres) or less in height from grade unless such thing is a
component or element that physically or visually combines with or appears to
Page 176 of 230
contribute to the use or purposes of the privacy screen whether attached thereto
or self -supported.
The applicant's structure appears to be constructed in a similar manner to the
previously -constructed fence extending rearwards from the front of the house, and visually
combines with it. Therefore, it is a fence.
This structure is also poorly constructed as it does not have proper footings. An eight foot tall by
eight foot wide fence structure needs fence posts for stability and security. Not including them
means that this structure has been constructed with poor workmanship, in contravention of
subsection (b) of section 630.2.3 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code, which states:
No person shall erect, construct, maintain, have, own, allow to remain, fail to remove, or
permit or cause to be erected, maintained, or constructed any fence that has:
(a) been constructed or partially constructed of materials that are not suitable or
sufficient for the purpose for which they have been used;
(b) been constructed with poor workmanship, or
(c) not been maintained in a safe manner.
We recognize that the Committee of Adjustment could still issue a variance for this structure,
possibly with conditions. However, we strongly object to such a variance especially with
conditions.
If the structure were to remain, the applicant will be unable to tend to the lawn and weeds
between the structure and the property line shared with 916 Keewatin PI, in contravention of
subsection (c) of City of Kitchener Municipal Code section 665.6.1, which states:
Exterior property areas shall be maintained in a safe condition and so as not detract from
the neighbouring environment, including but not limited to the removal of:
a) rubbish, garbage, waste, litter, and debris;
b) trees, bushes, and hedges including any branches or limbs thereof which are
dead, decayed or damaged, and brush;
c) noxious weeds pursuant to the Weed Control Act, R. S. 0. 1990, c. W.5 and any
excessive growth of other weeds, grass, and bushes;
d) wrecked, dismantled, inoperative, discarded, or unlicensed vehicles, trailers,
machinery or parts thereof, except in an establishment licensed or authorized to
conduct a salvage, wrecking, or repair business and then only if such
establishment conforms with any relevant by-laws, statutes, or regulations; and
e) dilapidated or collapsed buildings, structures or erections, and the filling in or
protecting of any unprotected well.
The only way that portion of the applicant's property can be tended is if the applicant or their
delegates trespass onto 916's property, 916 tends to that portion of 920's property, or the City of
Kitchener tends to that part of the property. The applicant has been involved in conflicts with
several neighbours on the street, including ourselves, and there is a long history of bylaw and
police calls either from or about the applicant. The applicant has been in a particularly heated
conflict with the neighbours at 916. The owners of 916 are under absolutely no obligation to
either allow the applicant or their agents onto their property to tend to the applicant's property or
Page 177 of 230
to tend to the property themselves. Any such activity by either side would result in either a police
call or a lawsuit for trespassing. This has happened before: such incidents are detailed in
judgement Cecchin v Lander, 2019 Canl-l1 131883 (ON SCSM), located at
https:Hcanlii.ca/t/05vm8, against Marcel Bradbury (an occupant of 920). Having the City come
and tend to this part of the applicant's property would be an extremely wasteful use of City
resources.
Therefore, those grasses and weeds will grow to unsightly heights in full view of the street. This
is unacceptable for the health and property values of everyone else on the street and is not in
keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
We would also like to remind the Committee of Adjustment of a previous request for variances
by 920 (A 2019-062). One request, to park on the side yard next to the property line shared by
920 and us at 921 Keewatin PI, was denied, but the applicant still parked there after the denial
before a fence was built. When we contacted the city to complain about this and other problems,
as we had been told to do during the CoA meeting of July 19, 2019, nothing changed and
eventually a city employee told us not to contact them about the issues again. Another of the
applicant's variance requests was approved with the condition that they provide a parking plan.
The applicant did provide such a plan but did not and has not implemented it.
We were also harassed by the applicant: after we told them we would oppose their variance
requests, they filed a police report falsely accusing one of us of vandalism. Other harassing
incidents included calling the police to accuse us of spying when we took our dog out to the
boulevard circle to pee and to play Pokemon Go; flashing vehicle lights and honking a vehicle
horn at midnight when we did the same; and calling the police to accuse us of harassment when
we took photos of parking violations to report the violations to the City. It was an awful time. We
just wanted the applicant to follow the rules, and we were harassed and bullied in return.
We raise these issues because that entire experience is likely to be repeated if the structure is
approved, especially if it is approved with conditions. The applicant may adhere to the letter and
not the spirit of the conditions or may only give the appearance of adhering to the conditions.
We are concerned that the applicant may seek to increase rather than attempt to lower tensions
with their neighbours, and may bully and harass neighbours until the applicant gets their way.
We have no reason to believe that the applicant will behave any differently than they did in 2019
with respect to this structure, if it is approved. The only difference would be which neighbour is
on the receiving end of the applicant's bullying.
That experience also demonstrated that we cannot rely on the City to enforce rules and
regulations related to this structure, and that we will have no recourse if the applicant does not
follow bylaw or variance conditions.
In conclusion: good fences make good neighbours, but this structure is not a good fence.
Please do not approve the variance request. Allowing that structure to remain will only increase
Page 178 of 230
tensions on this street and result in a lowering of our property values. We hope that if the
variance request is denied, the applicant will be required to remove the structure.
We understand that the applicant desires privacy from 916 and vice versa, but a fence,
especially a fence structure like the one built by the applicant, is an inappropriate solution. The
best solution to the privacy concerns would be a bush or shrubbery. Emerald cedars are the
usual recommendation but they are notoriously difficult to grow. Perhaps a columnar oak,
maple, or yew would be a good choice for that location.
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 179 of 230
From: -
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: 920 Keewatin PI Kitchener
Date: July 11, 2023 11:10:15 PM
To Whom It May Concern
This email is about the structure on the front lawn at 920 Keewatin Pl.
First and foremost a structure of this nature should not or better yet is not permissible on the
front lawn in a residential neighbourhood. It is a cumbersome and ugly box. It is not a gazebo.
By permitting this you are opening up a can of worms (for lack of a better expression). You
will be creating havoc for yourselves with similar situations in the future and other
neighbourhoods. As a neighbour in the immediate area I can simply say I do not appreciate
what this thing is let alone where it is situated.
I hope the committee can come to a conclusion that suits the neighbours and convey to the
specific homeowner what their reasoning is based on the city's own related guidelines and
rules.
Sincerely
Gar Dines
Wiw
Page 180 of 230
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: Regarding : A 2023 085 - Application for Minor Variance
Date: July 12, 2023 10:48:56 AM
To the concerned authority,
This email is in regard to the Application for a minor variance to the Zoning Bylaw by 920
Keewatin Pl. We are homeowners of 909 Keewatin PI and would like to express our opinion
about the above request.
We feel that the structure built is too bold for a decorative Garden Arbor. The fact that it does
not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law is concerning to us as residents of this small
and friendly court.
We would think that it's only fair to obey the by-laws and rules in place without any variance.
These sensible rules make sure our neighborhood and community remain beautiful and safe
for all families as it is now.
We would have no objections if anybody has a front yard structure that is fully compliant. And
we are afraid that this approval can set a bad example for the community.
We request the City to please reconsider the decision that approved this non compliant
structure.
Thanks,
Jithu James and Chinnu Thomas
Page 181 of 230