HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2004-12-07 FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 77 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. D. Angel and Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski, Z. Janecki and B. Isaac.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Mr. B. Sloan, Planner, Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer, and
Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer
Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 11:15 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 (Fence) 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 Tuesday, December 13, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.,
and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired.
NEW BUSINESS
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
FN 2004-003
Nathan P. Smye
2 Camrose Court
Lot 1, Registered Plan 1623
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. N. Smye
Ms. B. Privatt
Contra: None
Public Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to legalize an existing 1.8 m
(5.9 ft.) high fence located in a side yard abutting Highland Crescent 0 m from the lot line
instead of the required 1.5 m (4.92 ft.) setback.
The Committee noted the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated,
November 29, 2004, stating the Fence By-law was amended in 2002 to address fences on
corner lots, such as the subject site. The two options that the By-law permits is either a 0.91 m
high fence up to 0 m of a street line or a maximum 1.8 m high fence with a minimum 1.5 m
setback from the street line. The intent is to not have a "wall effect" at the sidewalk and street
along with providing the opportunity for landscaping (while still allowing for a higher fence than
what was previously allowed in a yard abutting a street, in order to have some measure of
privacy). The proposed fence variance would have an impact on the streetscape and does not
meet the intent of the By-law, therefore Planning staff cannot support the application.
Transportation Planning has also reviewed this application and requests that a 4.57 m corner
visibility triangle be provided at the neighbouring property line on Highland Crescent.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 30, 2004, advising they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 7 DECEMBER 7, 2004
1. Submission No.: FN 2004-003 (Cont'd)
Mr. Smye addressed the Committtee advising the fence was installed by a fencing contractor 5
months ago. The fence is necessary to provide privacy, as this property is located across the
street from a nursing home, which looks into their yard. Mr. Smye further advised the fence is
comparable to other fences in the neighbourhood. He submitted a photograph showing the
existing fence.
Ms. Privatt noted their abutting neighbours at 112 Highland Crescent are happy with the existing
fence, and even paid for part of the costs of having it erected.
When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Smye advised the shrubs located in front of the fence
were planted by him.
Mr. Janecki advised he attended at the property and the property at 112 Highland Crescent. He
stated the fence does cause a visibility problem when exiting the driveway at 112 Highland
Crescent, which he considers to be to be a major safety concern. He advised he is in support of
this application on the condition that the owners remove a 4.57 m section of fence adjacent to
the abutting property on Highland Crescent to provide a visibility triangle, as recommended by
the City's Transportation Planner.
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Ms. D. Angel
That the application of Nathan P. Smye requesting legalization of an existing 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) high
fence located 0 m from the lot line abutting Highland Crescent (sideyard abutting a street) rather
than the required 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1623, 2 Camrose Court, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall remove sections of the existing fence to provide a 4.57 m (14.99 ft.)
corner visibility triangle at the easterly corner of the subject property, where the property
abutts Lot 1, Registered Plan 1308, at Highland Crescent.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance approved in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630
(Fence) is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 7th day of December, 2004.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasu rer
Committee of Adjustment