Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-11-21 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, Z. Janecki and B. Isaac. 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 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 (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, December 18, 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 2006-007 Applicant: Andy Staller Property Location: 35 Julia Crescent Legal Description: Lot 112, Registered Plan 1819 Appearances: In Support: Mr. A. Staller Contra: None Written Submissions: S. & K. Hagan T. McCombs The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission fora 2.1 m ~7') long portion of the fence, being 1.4m (4.5') high, located 4m (13.12') from the front lot line along Julia Crescent rather than the permitted 0.95m (3') high fence. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated November 14, 2006 advising that the subject property is located on the south side of Julia Crescent and contains a single family dwelling. The Municipal Plan designation is Low Rise Residential and the zoning is Residential Four (R-4) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalize an existing fence with a height of 1.4 metres (4.5 feet) high located 4 metres (13.1 feet) from the front lot line rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.9 metre (3 feet) for a fence located in the front yard. In considering the requested variances to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The intent of the 0.9 metre height restriction for a fence located in a front yard is to ensure that the fence does not impede traffic visibility. This variance request concerns only that the portion of the fence that is 1.4 metres high and located in the front yard (in front of the fagade of the building). Fences to the side and rear of the building are permitted up to 2.44 metres in height. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 13 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-007(Cont'd The 1.4 metre high portion of the fence that is in the front yard is setback from the front lot line approximately 4.06 metres (13.3 feet) as shown on the submitted drawings. Aesthetically, this does not appear to affect the enjoyment or development of this residential area. As noted by the Trafific Division, there are no concerns with this portion of the fence as long it is setback a minimum 4.57 metres from the roadway. The submitted drawings indicate it is located a minimum of 7.5 metres (25 feet) from the roadway. It has been brought to stafif's attention that the fence continues past the front lot line towards the paved portion of the street, thus placing the fence of City lands. The applicant had requested permission for an encroachment agreement with the City for this portion of the fence, but the request was denied. Consequently, it is recommended that approval of this request also be conditional on the removal of any portion of the fence encroaching onto City lands by December 31st, 2006. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 14, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submissions from two neighbourhood residents in opposition to this application. Mr. Parent advised that when reviewing Fence Variance Applications, Transportation Planning staff are most concerned about maintaining visibility at the driveway. Their position is that the fence must be no higher than 0.95m within the 4.57m driveway visibility triangle, and in this case this requirement has been met. It is the opinion of Transportation Planning stafif that the fence does not cause visibility problems or safety concerns. Mr. Britton noted that this fence encroaches onto City property, and this Committee can not approve a fence on City property. Mr. Staller advised that he has applied to the City for an encroachment agreement. Mr. Staller noted there are other encroachments onto City property in this neighbourhood, and he is prepared to accept liability for that portion of the fence on City property. Mr. Parent advised that the applicant has already applied to the City for an encroachment agreement for the fence, and the City's Legal Services has advised by letter that they can not support this encroachment. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Staller advised the variance is required because his front door is at an angle to the street, and people coming along the street can see right into the front door and down the hall. The higher portion of the fence allows privacy and security vis-a- visthe front entry. Upon further questioning, Mr. Staller advised he was aware of the Fence By-law requirements prior to constructing the fence, however, his discussions with the City were taking longer than he thought they would and he wanted the fence constructed before the weather changed. Mr. Janecki advised he had visited this property and from a traffic safety point of view he finds no problem with the fence, contrary to the neighbours' objections. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Andy Staller requesting permission fora 2.1 m (7') long portion of the fence, being 1.4 m (4.5') high, located 4m (13.12') from the front lot line along Julia Crescent rather than the permitted 0.95m (3') high fence, on Lot 112, Registered Plan 1819, 35 Julia Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That any portion of the fence located on City lands shall be removed no later than January 14, 2007. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 14 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-007~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 10:35 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21 st day of November, 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment