Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-09-12 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and Ms. D. Angel. Ms. T. Malone-Wright, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 11:55 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 Monday, September 12, 2006, 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 2006-004 Applicant: Martin & Klaudia Swierczynski Property Location: 205 Copper Leaf Street Legal Description: Part dot 93, Reference Plan 58R-12815, Block 7, Registered Plan 58M-172 Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions: Mr. & Mrs. M. Swierczynski None Ms. P. Dougan Ms. C. Nagle Ms. K. Hodder Ms. M. Symons Ms. S. Blackham The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a 1.82m ~6') high wooden fence located 0.4 m (1.31') from the lot line abutting Max Becker Drive rather than the required 1.5 m (4.9') setback. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 5, 2006 advising the applicant is proposing to legalize a 1.82m high board fence located 0.4m from the side lot line abutting a street. Planning staff understand that this application for minor variance is one of possibly 5-6 other properties in the immediate vicinity which would relief from the fence by-law. The applicant was advised along with the other properly owners in the same situation that ideally the applications should all be submitted at the same time to comprehensively look at the deficiencies in the fence setbacks and the effect of the variances on visibility, streetscape, and the character of the neighbourhood. The applicant was not willing to hold off on the application as they had advised staff that they would not be able to be physically present at the next Committee of Adjustment meeting to speak to their application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-004 (Cont'd~ SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 In reviewing this single application for minor variance staff has considered that the intent of the City's Fence By-law is to have a fence greater than 0.9m setback a minimum of 1.5m from a street line. The purpose of this requirement is to provide an adequate separation distance from a taller fence structure to the sidewalk and provide for appropriate width of landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence structure to soften the effect of the fence on the streetscape. Staff notes that the fence is nicely landscaped at the front and its present location allows for the location of an above ground pool in the rear side yard of the property. Staff are also cognizant of other fences in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the fence by-law, some of which applications are expected at the next Committee of Adjustment meeting. However with respect to this particular application, staff has difficulty supporting the application as submitted given that the proposed variance does not achieve either purpose of the by-law. Accordingly, as the intent of the fence by-law is not maintained, planning staff cannot support the application. Transportation Planning Division advises they have no concerns with the existing fence while the location of the fence is in close proximity of the sidewalk, they would be more concerned about any visibility concerns the fence would create both at the intersection of Copper deaf Street and Max Becker Drive, and at the neighbouring driveway. A site inspection revealed that the fence does not create a visibility hazard at the neighbouring driveway, and the minimum stopping sight distance at the intersection is exceeded. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Swierczynski advised that when they purchased this property it was the first house on the street. The fence was erected approximately 5 years ago, and they didn't properly understand the fence by-law. They have tried to screen the fence with vines to make it more attractive. Further, they have a pool, and if the fence has to be moved they will also have to remove the pool; as the pool and deck will not fit into the backyard due to the grading. Mr. Swierczynski further advised that the road is curved, so the fence does not give the appearance or feel of a tunnel, and the fence does not create any traffic problems. Further, the fence is not a visual distraction and blends in well with the natural look. He pointed out to the Committee written submissions from some of his neighbours in support of the application. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Swierczynski advised that this application came about when the City's Enforcement staff was called out to inspect one of his neighbour's fences, and their fence was noticed by staff. The Chair noted that the intent of the by-law is an aesthetic streetscape. He suggested additional landscaping on the outside of the fence to soften its appearance. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Martin & Klaudia Swierczynski requesting legalization of a 1.82m ~6') high wooden fence located 0.4 m (1.31') from the lot line abutting Max Becker Drive rather than the required 1.5 m X4.9') setback, on Block 7, Registered Plan 58M-172, being Part 93, Reference Plan 58R-12815, 205 Copper Leaf Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owners shall provide additional landscaping on the outside of the fence, satisfactory to the City's Planning Division, to soften the appearance of the fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 7 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-004 (Cont'd~ 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 (Fence) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:04 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th day of September, 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment