Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-09-11 FENCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Kruse, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Kruse, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:20 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 Monday, September 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS 1.Submission No.: FN 2001-009 Applicant: Jason & Angela Haelzle Property Location: 374 Misty Crescent Legal Description: Lot 102, Registered Plan 1734 Appearances: In Support:Mr. J. Haelzle 374 Misty Crescent Kitchener, ON N2B 3V7 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to modify an existing wooden fence setback 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) from the northerly sideyard adjacent to Misty Crescent, from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 12.65 m (41.5 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the intent of the 0.91 metre (3 ft.) height restriction for fencing on corner lots is to ensure clear and unobstructed visibility for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The proposed fence would be located well outside of the daylight corner at the intersection and would not be considered a visibility hazard. The abutting property to the rear, 430 Misty Crescent, has driveway access on the opposite side of the property, and therefore the proposed fence would not impact the neighbouring property. Staff consider the variance for a 1.83 metre (6 ft.) high fence to be minor in nature and appropriate for the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 21 -SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 1.Submission No.: FN 2001-009, (Cont’d) Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2001- 009. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Haelzle had anything further to add. Mr. J. Haelzle advised that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add. 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 Jason and Angela Haelzle requesting permission to modify an existing wooden fence setback 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) from the northerly sideyard adjacent to Misty Crescent, from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 12.65 m (41.5 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 102, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 1734, 374 Misty 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 that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of September 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and Mr. Haelzle was advised that he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. 2.Submission No.: FN 2001-010 Applicant: Bart & Danette Boeckner Property Location: 561 Veronica Drive Legal Description: Lot 36, Registered Plan 58M-125 Appearances: In Support:Mr. & Mrs. B. Boeckner 561 Veronica Drive Kitchener, ON N2A 4E8 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a wooden fence setback 0 m from the westerly sideyard adjacent to Veronica Drive, from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 17.07 m (56 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 22 -SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 2.Submission No.: FN 2001-010, (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant wishes to have a more private rear yard area, and is proposing the 1.52 metre (5 ft.) high fence to comply with the fencing requirements for a future swimming pool installation. The intent of the 0.91 metre (3 ft.) height restriction for fencing on corner lots is to ensure clear and unobstructed visibility for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The proposed fence would be located well outside of the daylight corner at the intersection and would not be considered a visibility hazard. However, the abutting property to the rear, 201 Veronica Drive, has driveway access close to the location of the proposed fence and staff is of the opinion that the fence would pose a visibility hazard for vehicles exiting the property. Staff from Traffic and Parking normally require a 4.5 metre (15 ft.) visibility corner when a fence is located near a driveway. Staff recommend that the applicant provide the 4.5 metre (15 ft.) visibility corner from the rear corner lot line abutting Veronica Drive. If the applicant provides the 4.5 metre (15 ft.) driveway visibility corner staff consider the variance for a 1.52 metre (5 ft.) high fence to be minor in nature and appropriate for the property. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2001- 010, as amended to provide a 4.5 metre (15 ft.) driveway visibility corner. 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 application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that while Traffic & Parking have no concerns with the proposed height of the fence, it is recommended that a 4.57 m driveway daylight triangle be provided at the driveway of 201 Veronica Drive. The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to a 4.5 m driveway visibility corner. The Chair inquired if Mr. & Mrs. Boeckner had anything further to add. The Boeckner’s advised that they did not agree with the request to provide a visibility corner given the fact that there is a large boulevard at the end of their neighbour’s driveway which provides, in their opinion, sufficient visibility. Mr. Boeckner further advised that it is intended to erect a chain link fence rather than a wooden fence and that they had spoken with their neighbour who indicated he had no concerns with respect to the proposed fence. The Boeckner’s presented photographs of their property and surrounding area and these were reviewed by the Committee. The Chair commented that from the pictures presented it would appear the boulevard provides sufficient visibility for the neighbouring driveway; however, requested staff to comment. Ms. J. Given pointed out that the visibility corner provides for the safety of pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. While it appears the boulevard provides sufficient distance for motorists the safety of pedestrians is still a concern. In response to questions, Ms. Given advised that the Committee could restrict the type of material used to construct the fence, as well as prohibit any planting within the area of the visibility corner. The Chair stated that he was of the view that if a chain link fence was installed and no planting within the visibility corner was permitted, the fence would still be transparent enough to allow visibility with respect to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The remaining members of the Committee concurred with these comments. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Bart & Danette Boeckner requesting permission to erect a chain link fence setback 0 m from the westerly sideyard adjacent to Veronica Drive, from the rear lot line COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 23 -SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 2. Submission No.: FN 2001-010, (Cont’d) and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 17.07 m (56 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 36, Registered Plan 58M-125, 561 , BE APPROVED Veronica Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the fence shall be constructed of chain link. 2. That no planting or landscaping shall be permitted within the 4.5 m (15 ft.) daylight visibility corner adjacent to the driveway of 201 Veronica Drive that would obstruct the visibility of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 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 that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of September 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and Mr. & Mrs. Boeckner were advised that they may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. th Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11 day of September, 2001. Janet Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment