Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-10-30 FENCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 30, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, B. Isaac and P. Britton. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 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, November 5, 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 2001-011 Applicant: Paul & Patricia Wilkinson Property Location: 478 Westforest Trail Legal Description: Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 1790, designated as Part Lot 20 on Reference Plan 58R-9482 Appearances: In Support:Mr. P. Wilkinson 478 Westforest Trail Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 Contra:Mr. J. Tuck 9 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 Mr. J. Moniz 5 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:Mr. & Mrs. J. Tuck 9 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 Mr. R. Collins 7 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 25 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-011 (Cont’d) Mr. T. Querin 2 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 Mr. B. Cressman 4 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 Mr. B. Ferguson 6 Westmeadow Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 3J8 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence setback 0 m from the lot line adjacent to Westmeadow Drive a distance of 4 m (13.12 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 applicants have advised that they wish to install a swimming pool and hot tub in the future and require the fence of this height to also contain their dog. The existing 1.82 metre (6 ft.) fence will comply with the City’s fencing requirements for a swimming pool. The property is located on the corner of Westforest Trail and Westmeadow Drive with driveway access off of Westforest Trail. The fence is located within the corner visibility triangle but provides a setback of 5.5 metres (18 ft.) from the intersection and as such it will not impact vehicular or pedestrian movements at the corner or on the subject property. Traffic and Parking staff have no concern with the location of the fence. The abutting property at 5 Westmeadow Drive has driveway access adjacent to the side lot line of 478 Westforest Trail, however, the applicant is providing a 4.75 metres (15.5 ft.) driveway visibility corner so there will be no visibility hazard created for the neighbouring property. Staff considers the variance for a 1.82 metre (6 ft.) high fence for a distance of 4.0 metres (13 ft.) along the Westmeadow Drive lot line to be minor in nature and appropriate for the property. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2001- 011. 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 Committee noted the written submission of the following individuals in which they state their objection to the minor variance application: Mr. & Mrs. J. Tuck, Mr. R. Collins, Mr. T. Querin, Mr. B. Cressman and Mr. B. Ferguson. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Wilkinson had anything further to add. Mr. P. Wilkinson advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. Mr. J. Tuck advised that he was the owner of 9 Westmeadow Drive and was appearing in opposition to the application on behalf of himself and four other neighbouring property owners. Mr. Tuck advised that the main issue of concern related to safety with respect to vehicles travelling around the corner and also the safety of children walking or riding bicycles. In addition, he noted that the fence would leave less room for snow removal and high snow banks would hinder visibility. Mr. P. Britton questioned if the daylight triangle shown on the sketch attached to the application was in fact at the intersection of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail. Mr. Wilkinson advised that the fence was approximately 50 ft. from the intersection. In response to a further question COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 26 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-011 (Cont’d) from Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given clarified that the survey indicates that the fence is setback 6 m from the intersection of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail. Mr. P. Britton requested Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, to comment on the concerns raised by Mr. Tuck relative to visibility. Mr. Parent advised that the minimum standard required for provision of a daylight triangle is 15 ft., which has been provided, and accordingly, Traffic staff do not have any concerns regarding visibility. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given advised that the fence is permitted to be located on the property line provided it is only 3 ft. in height and the purpose of the minor variance application is to request a height of 6 ft. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Paul and Patricia Wilkinson requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence setback 0 m from the lot line adjacent to Westmeadow Drive a distance of 4 m (13.12 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 1790, designated as Part Lot 20 on Reference Plan BE APPROVED 58R-9482, 478 Westforest Trail, 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 November 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and those attending this date were advised that they may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. Submission No.: 2.FN 2001-012 Applicant: Chris Zakrzewski & Barbara Kiel Property Location: 63 Highview Drive Legal Description: Lot 632, Registered Plan 1452 Appearances: In Support:Mr. C. Zakrzewski 63 Highview Drive Kitchener, ON N2N 1X1 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence setback 0.6 m (1.97 ft.) from the westerly sideyard adjacent to Hickory Hollow Crescent, from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 25.6 m (84 ft.), having a maximum height of 2.56 m (7.4 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 27 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 2. FN 2001-012 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant previously applied to the Committee and received approval for a 1.82 metre (6 ft.) fence setback 0.6 metres (2 ft.) from the side lot line abutting Hickory Hollow Crescent. The variance was requested to provide more privacy in the rear yard area. During construction of the fence, the applicant added a 0.3 metre (1 ft.) section of lattice to the top of the fence to soften its appearance along the exterior side lot line resulting in this application. Fences on corner lots are permitted to a maximum height of 0.9 metres (3 ft.) within 4.5 metres (15 ft.) of the side lot line abutting the street. The intent of the regulation is to ensure clear and unobstructed visibility for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Due to the grading of the property the fence ranges in height from approximately 1.98 metres (6.5 ft.) to the maximum of 2.25 metres (7.4 ft.). It is located well outside of the daylight corner and does not affect traffic or pedestrian movements at the intersection of Highview Drive and Hickory Hollow Crescent. The neighbouring property at 11 Hickory Hollow Crescent abuts the rear lot line of the subject property and has driveway access approximately 10.3 metres (34 ft.) from the rear lot line of 63 Highview Drive. Staff are of the opinion that the 10.3 metre (34 ft.) distance from the proposed fence to the neighbour’s driveway plus the additional 0.6 metre (1.97 ft.) setback of the fence provides adequate visibility for vehicles entering or exiting the driveway. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature and creates a more pleasing streetscape with the addition of the lattice work on the fence. Traffic and Parking staff have no concern with the location or height of the fence. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2001-012 as submitted. 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 staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Zakrzewski had anything further to add. Mr. C. Zakrzewski advised that he had reviewed the staff report and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Chris Zakrzewski and Barbara Kiel requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence setback 0.6 m (1.97 ft.) from the westerly sideyard adjacent to Hickory Hollow Crescent, from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 25.6 m (84 ft.), having a maximum height of 2.56 m (7.4 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on BE APPROVED Lot 632, Registered Plan 1452, 63 Highview Drive, 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 November 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and Mr. Zakrzewski was advised that he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 28 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 3.FN 2001-013 Applicant: Linda & Zheng-Yu (Jeff) Chen Property Location: 28 Forest Breeze Court Legal Description: Lot 107, Registered Plan 1689 Appearances: In Support:Mr. Z. Chen 28 Forest Breeze Court Kitchener, ON N2N 3H9 Contra:Mr. R.Brennan 42 Forest Breeze Court Kitchener, ON N2N 3H9 Written Submissions:None In Support: Contra:Mr. & Mrs. R. Brennan 42 Forest Breeze Court Kitchener, ON N2N 3H9 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence setback 0 m from the easterly sideyard adjacent to Forest Breeze Court from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 2.13 m (7 ft.), having a maximum height of 2.13 m (7 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 variance approval is required only for that portion of the fence within 4.5 metres (15 feet) of the Forest Breeze Court lot line, beyond which the fence may be 2.31 metres (8 feet) in height. The applicant states that the fence is required in order to provide a safe and secure area for their children. The fence runs along the entire length of the rear lot line and continues a short distance along the street lot line as shown on the attached drawing. A hedge approximately 0.6 metre (2 feet) high which is not shown on the submitted drawing surrounds the remainder of the rear yard. The intent of the 0.91 metre height restriction within 4.5 metres of a side lot line abutting a street is to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular visibility. The fence is not located within the 15 metre corner visibility triangle at the intersection and would not pose a visibility concern for traffic using the intersection. As well, Traffic & Parking has stated they have no concerns in regard to the fence and its location from the neighbour's driveway at the rear of the property. A city-owned landscaped area of approximately 4.26 metres (14 feet) exists between the curb and the fence. There is no sidewalk on this portion of the Court. In regard to the height of the fence and the aesthetics of the streetscape, staff are of the opinion that the 2.31 metres is excessive considering the location of the fence abutting a street lot line and the 0.6 m high hedge. Staff are currently reviewing changes to the Fence By-law that would permit 1.8 metre (6 feet) high fences within 0 metres of side lot lines abutting streets providing they are not a visibility concern. Therefore it is recommended that the fence be reduced in height to 1.8 metres within 4.5 metres of the lot line abutting the street. It is noted that Enforcement staff have concerns regarding the construction and stability of the fence. The applicant is advised that it is their responsibility to ensure the fence is securely anchored in the ground and does not create a property standards concern. Based on the above comments, and providing the fence is reduced in height, it is the opinion of staff that the general intent of the by-law is being met and the requested variance is considered minor in nature. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance FN 2001- 013 providing the height of the fence is reduced to 1.8 metres (6 feet) within 4.5 metres of the lot line abutting Forest Breeze Court and providing the fence is adequately anchored in the ground no later than January 21, 2002 to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 29 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 3. FN 2001-013 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the written submission of Joyce & Robert Brennan in which they advised that they strongly object to the existing height of the fence (7 feet instead of the permitted 3 feet). The two major safety concerns, as detailed below are: (1) the reduced visibility caused by the fence; and, (2) the substandard construction of the fence. This fence is located parallel to our driveway, and our view of the road is significantly obstructed when backing out of our driveway due to the fences extreme height and awkward location. This is of particular concern in this Court location, since the fence in question is located opposite the Court’s “island”, which many neighbourhood children play on and around. Over a dozen children who reside in the area, from preschoolers to early teens, regularly travel around this island on their bikes, scooters, roller blades, etc. The applicant also has two very young children who play in the adjoining backyard, for which a small hedge is the only barrier between them and the road at this precarious location. Obstructing the view with a 7 foot high fence poses additional risk for a child’s accidental escape from this backyard and the adjoining front yards. We are very concerned for the safety of all of these children, including our own four children, should there be an error of judgment of any driver using the adjoining parallel driveways, or any driver travelling around the court. It is extremely important for traffic both coming and going to be able to gain a clear perspective of the road and front yard of the adjoining property, which this fence as it currently constructed does not allow. Winter conditions, with snow piling against a 7 foot fence in this location will also contribute to road hazards and further reduce road visibility, endangering all residents and their visitors’ safety. Furthermore, the fence poses a danger in itself due to its substandard construction. Since there are no secure footings (metal stakes only; no cement footings), at 4 months of age it is already extremely shaky and has shifted noticeably. This fence is situated alongside a swale, with water passing along its full length whenever there is precipitation or runoff, further heightening the need for secure footings and sturdy construction. Several neighbours have also expressed concerns about children’s safety, should the fence collapse as a result of any child attempting to climb the structure and/or as a result of windstorms and other inclement weather. For this location we believe it necessary to uphold the municipal by-law of a fence 3 feet in height, properly installed, to ensure neighbourhood safety. There are several much safer and more visually appealing fence structures which can and should be used. This would also resolve several of the neighbour’s complaints about the fence as being incompletely constructed and an eyesore. With the addition of some judiciously placed planting materials, we are certain that a degree of privacy can be maintained without posing a serious safety hazard for the neighbourhood. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to the height of the fence being reduced to 1.8 m (6 ft.), and inquired if Mr. Chen had anything further to add. Mr. Z. Chen provided several photographs showing the location of the existing fence and pointed out that in the staff comments Traffic & Parking staff have no concerns with regard to visibility. He stated that his rear yard is elevated sloping down towards the street and reducing the height of the fence to 6 ft. would lessen his privacy. Accordingly, he would prefer to maintain the existing 7 ft. height. Mr. R. Brennan advised that he was the owner of the neighbouring property at 42 Forest Breeze Court. He noted that the fence is located to the side of his front yard and driveway, and the fence obstructs his visibility when backing out of the driveway. He commented that he believed the fence to be within the daylight triangle, noting that the side of his driveway was approximately 3.7 ft from the fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 30 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 3. FN 2001-013 (Cont’d) The Chair requested Traffic staff to comment. Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, advised that staff had determined the fence is not within the daylight corner and have no concerns regarding visibility for traffic using the intersection. In addition, he noted that staff have no concern with regard to the neighbour’s driveway as there is a 14 ft. boulevard between the Court and the fence, and there is no sidewalk on this portion of the Court. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given advised that the recommendation to reduce the height of the fence does not relate to traffic or safety issues but rather is to address aesthetics only. Mr. Brennan advised that the fence had been erected while he was away on vacation and no consultation had been provided by Mr. Chen prior to it being erected. He stated that he felt the 3 foot restriction within the Fence By-law was adequate and should be maintained. He also expressed concern that should a sidewalk be constructed in the future the fence would create a visibility problem, and especially noted concern with regard to the safety of children. Mr. Brennan further noted that the fence does not fit within the character of the neighbourhood as there are no other similar fences along the Court. He also advised that the fence has been poorly constructed with only metal stakes being used rather than cement footings. In this regard, he advised there is concern that the fence will topple if children attempt to climb it or that it will not hold up in inclement weather. Mr. Chen stated that he had been advised by the retailer that the metal stakes met standard specifications and were guaranteed to be safe for at least 10 years. Mr. P. Britton questioned at what height Mr. Brennan would be satisfied, given the By-law permits a 3 ft. fence along the property line and staff are recommending a maximum height of 6 ft. Mr. Brennan stated that he would be willing to accept a height of 5 ft. for the portion of the fence adjacent to the Forest Breeze Court lot line and 6 ft. for the remainder of the fence. In this regard, Mr. Britton pointed out that the variance is only required for the portion of the fence adjacent to the Forest Breeze Court lot line. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Chen advised that the reasons for constructing a 7 ft. fence relate to issues of security and privacy. In this regard, Mr. Brennan questioned the issue of security given that only a 2 ft. hedge is in place for the remainder of the lot line adjacent to Forest Breeze Court. Mr. P. Britton advised that he was prepared to recommend approval of a fence 5 ft. in height for the portion located along the Forest Breeze Court lot line and subject to the fence being adequately anchored. In response to Mr. Chen, Mr. Britton advised that the Committee bases decisions on the intent of the By-law, taking into consideration issues of height, traffic concerns and aesthetics. He noted that the rationale used for constructing a 7 ft. fence related to security and privacy; however, the fence is not continuous and privacy could be enhanced with additional landscaping. Accordingly, Mr. Britton stated he was of the opinion that a fence 5 ft. in height along this portion of the property would be adequate. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded byMr. B. Isaac That the application of Zheng-Yu (Jeff) Chen and Linda Chen requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence located within 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) of the Forest Breeze Court lot line, having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 107, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 1689, 28 Forest Breeze Court, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1.That the owner shall ensure the fence is adequately anchored in the ground to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner, by no later than January 21, 2002. No extension to the completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.The variance approved in this application is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 31 -OCTOBER 30, 2001 Submission No.: 3. FN 2001-013 (Cont’d) 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 November 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and those in attendance this date 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 30 day of October, 2001. Janet Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment