HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-05-01 FENCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 1, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. P. Kruse, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Acting Secretary-Treasurer,
and Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst.
Mr. P. Kruse, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:25 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 that 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, May 22, 2001, 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.:
1.FN 2001-002
Applicant:
Michael & Barbara Roussel
Property Location:
39 Timberlane Crescent, Kitchener
Legal Description:
Plan 1426, Part Lot 338, Ref Plan 58R-2887, Part 21, 22 & 36
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. & Mrs. M. Roussel
39 Timberlane Crescent
Kitchener, ON
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:Mr. & Mrs. M. Roussel
39 Timberlane Crescent
Kitchener, ON
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high
wooden fence, rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.) high wooden fence, located on the
easterly lot line adjacent to Timberlane Crescent and the northerly (rear) lot line.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the variance is being requested as the applicant intends to install an inground
pool which requires a minimum 1.5 metre (5 ft.) non-climbable fence. The property is bounded on
two sides by Timberlane Crescent; the by-law requires any fencing greater than 0.9 metres (3 ft.)
in height to be set back 4.5 metres (14.76 ft.) to ensure clear and unobstructed visibility for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The fence runs parallel with the applicants’ driveway to the lot line, then approximately 9.6 metres
(31.7 ft.) along Timberlane Crescent and along the rear property line adjacent to the driveway of
47 Timberlane Crescent.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 5 -MAY 1, 2001
Submission No.:
1.FN 2001-002 (cont’d)
The fence as requested on the application cannot be supported because the by-law requires
adequate visibility to be provided for vehicles entering or exiting both the applicants’ and
neighbour’s driveway. The existing fence does not meet this requirement of the by-law. However,
if the applicant provides the required 4.5 metre (14.76 ft.) visibility corners at their driveway as
well as at the rear lot line abutting the driveway of 47 Timberlane Crescent, staff could support the
variance. Staff visited the site with the Traffic and Parking Analyst and marked the 4.5 metre
(14.76 ft.) visibility corners as required by the Traffic and Parking Division.
The section of fence abutting Timberlane Crescent is located well away from the intersection,
which will ensure clear sight lines. Provided the applicant modifies the fence to provide the two
driveway visibility corners, staff have no concern with the fence as it will maintain the general
intent and purpose of the City’s Fence By-law. The fence will have no impact on the
neighbouring property when the visibility corners are provided. Therefore, the variance, as
amended can be considered minor in nature.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN
2001-002 provided the applicant relocates the fence to provide 4.5 metre (14.76 ft.) driveway
visibility corners for the driveways on both 39 and 47 Timberlane Crescent to the satisfaction of
the Traffic and Parking Division.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building and the Grand River Conservation
Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this
submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and cannot support the location and the
height of the existing fence. The fence greatly reduces the visibility for motorists exiting both
driveways of 39 Timberlane Crescent and 47 Timberlane Crescent. Therefore, we are
recommending that 4.57 m driveway corner triangles be implemented at both driveways.
The Committee considered the written submission of Mr. and Mrs. Roussel, written in response to
the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst and Business and Planning Services Department,
advising that if they must provide the visibility triangles at each driveway, they would not have
enough room in their yard for the swimming pool they propose to install. They also noted that the
pool contractor has reviewed the staff comments and also believes that the pool could not be
installed if the visibility triangles must be provided.
Mrs. Roussel stated that the location of the fence does not affect visibility of oncoming vehicular
traffic.
Ms. J. Given confirmed that the key issue with this application for Business and Planning
Services staff as well as Traffic & Parking staff is safety. The fence by-law requires a 15 foot
setback in order to provide visibility of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Mr. R. Parent stated that he could not agree to the fence that exists as there is a need to provide
a minimum 15 foot visibility triangle at each driveway for the safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk
and vehicles on the road.
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 Michael & Barbara Roussel requesting permission to legalize a 1.82 m (6
ft.) high wooden fence, rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.) high wooden fence, located on the
easterly lot line adjacent to Timberlane Crescent and the northerly (rear) lot line on Part Lot 338,
Registered Plan 1426, being Parts 21, 22 and 26, Reference Plan 58R-2887, 39 Timberlane
BE APPROVED
Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario , subject to the following condition:
1. That the applicants shall provide a 4.57 m (15 foot) visibility triangle at the corner of their
driveway at 39 Timberlane Crescent and the street (Timberlane Crescent) and a 4.57 m
(15 foot) visibility triangle at the corner of the driveway at 47 Timberlane Crescent and the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 6 -MAY 1, 2001
Submission No.:
1.FN 2001-002 (cont’d)
street (Timberlane Crescent), at the applicant’s rear lot line, to the satisfaction of the Traffic &
Parking Division.
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.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630
(Fences) is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
The Chair advised Mr. & Mrs. Roussel that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation
to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of May 22, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in
the Council Chamber and they may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that
time.
Submission No.:
2.FN 2001-003
Applicant:
Peter & Renee Sukkel
Property Location:
29 Uxbridge Crescent, Kitchener
Legal Description:
Plan 1441, Part Lots 61 & 62, Ref Plan 58R-5328, Part 2
Appearances:
In Support:Mrs. R. Sukkel
29 Uxbridge Crescent
Kitchener, ON
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing 1.82
m (6 ft.) high wooden fence, rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.) high wooden fence,
located 1.21 m (4 ft.) from the lot line along Uxbridge Crescent.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they note that the applicant advises that the fence has been in existence for nine years,
and they wish to keep it in the current location as they are planning to install a swimming pool. To
meet the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) setback would not provide enough room for the pool.
The intent of the 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) setback is to ensure clear and unobstructed visibility for both
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Swimming pools require fencing to be a minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft.)
high and be non-climbable. The existing fence would comply with this regulation.
The location of the existing fence has provided more than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) driveway
visibility corner, and is situated well away from the intersection. The neighbouring property at 75
Uxbridge Crescent has driveway access on the opposite side of the lot, and the existing fence
poses no visibility problem for vehicular or pedestrian traffic on either property. The Traffic and
Parking Division have no concern with the existing fence.
The existing 1.82 metre (6 ft.) fence along Uxbridge Crescent is considered minor in nature and
maintains the intent and purpose of the City’s Fence By-law. The fence is this regard is
appropriate for the property to act as a swimming pool enclosure. The Department of Business
and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2001-003.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 7 -MAY 1, 2001
Submission No.:
2.FN 2001-003 (cont’d)
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the City’s Traffic & Parking
Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no
concerns or comments with respect to this submission.
The Chair questioned whether Ms. Sukkel had any questions with respect to the staff comments
and she responded that she is in agreement with them.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Peter & Renee Sukkel requesting legalization of a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high
wooden fence, rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.) high wooden fence, located 1.21 m (4 ft.)
from the lot line along Uxbridge Crescent, on Part Lots 61 and 62, Registered Plan 1441, being
BE APPROVED
Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-5328, 29 Uxbridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, .
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.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630
(Fences) is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
The Chair advised Mrs. Sukkel that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to
Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of May 22, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the
Council Chamber and she may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:42 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 1st day of May, 2001.
Dianne Gilchrist
Acting Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment