Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2002-06-18 FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 18, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, P. Kruse and P. Britton. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. B. Sloan, Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 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, July 2, 2002, 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.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: FN 2002-006 Jorge M. Ruth 60 Baird Avenue Part Lot 9, Registered Plan 1307 Appearances: In Support: Mr. Jorge Ruth 60 Baird Avenue Kitchener ON N2B 2N4 Contra: None Public Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. Jerome J. Karl 70 Bettley Crescent Kitchener ON N2B 2N8 Neighbourhood Petition The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence 0 m from the lot line adjacent to Bettley Crescent from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 7.31 m (24 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee was in receipt of the following City staff / agency comments and public submissions (if any): Business & Planning Services - June 10, 2002 -in support relative only to the section of fence located on the subject property and subject to the applicant obtaining Council approval for encroachment of any portion of the fence remaining on City property; COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 11 - JUNE 18, 2002 1. Submission No.: FN 2002-006 (Cont'd) Traffic & Parking Analyst - June 18, 2002 - opposed, as the existing fence enfringes into the 4.57 m daylight triangle, obstructing visibility exiting the driveway and recommends that the fence be cut back to provide a daylight triangle; The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application: · Director of Building - June 13, 2002 · Region of Waterloo - June 13, 2002 · Grand River Conservation Authority - June 11, 2002; · Mr. Jerome J. Karl, 70 Bettley Crescent - opposed; concerns raised relate to encroachment of the fence on City-owned lands, the height of the fence and property standards issues; · Neighbourhood Petition - opposed; concerns raised relate to the location and height of the fence. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the fence only for that portion located on the subject property and the applicant is required to obtain approval from City Council for encroachment of any portion of the fence on City-owned lands. In addition, the Chair referred to two letters of objection, one from the property owner at 70 Bettley Crescent and the second from a number of neighbourhood residents. Mr. Jorge Ruth advised that the existing fence has been in place for 10 years and he was unaware of his neighbours concerns until receiving copies of their comments. He pointed out that the fence was constructed to replace a deteriorating cedar hedge and he had also been unaware of regulations of the Fence By-law at the time of construction. Mr. Ruth referred to the comments of the Traffic & Parking Services with respect to the 4.5 m daylight triangle and requested clarification as to where this measurement was to be taken from. Mr. P. Britton requested that staff clarify the issue of the daylight triangle and the portion of the fence that staff are recommending the Committee consider versus the extent of encroachment of the fence on City-owned lands. Ms. J. Given reviewed the drawings submitted with the application and pointed out that the driveway to the subject property is accessed from Bettley Crescent and the fence encroaches into the 4.5 m daylight triangle adjacent to the driveway. She advised that the entire portion of the fence along Bettley Crescent encroaches on City-owned land and requires Council approval to remain in its present location. She further advised that the only portion of the fence that staff are requesting the Committee to consider is the portion of the fence that runs parallel with Baird Avenue along the rear of the subject property up to the side lot line. Following further discussion, Mr. S. Kay clarified for the applicant that the Committee only has jurisdiction to consider approval of the fence located along the rear lot line up to the side lot line and the remainder of the fence adjacent to Bettley Crescent will require Council approval to encroach on City-owned lands, as well as be modified to create the 4.5 m driveway visibility triangle. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Jorge Ruth requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence 1.82 m (6 ft.) in height only for that portion of the fence running along the rear lot line parallel to Baird Avenue to a point southerly up to the side lot line, on Part Lot 9, Registered Plan 1307, 60 Baird Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 12 - JUNE 18, 2002 Submission No.: FN 2002-006 (Cont'd) The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: FN 2002-007 Gerard and Brenda Kay 69 Glen Park Crescent Lot 445, Re.qistered Plan 1291 Appearances: In Support: Mrs. Brenda Kay 69 Glen Park Crescent Kitchener ON N2N 1G1 Contra: None Public Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing fence with a new wooden fence 0.6 m (2 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Glen Park Crescent from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 16.76 m (55 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee was in receipt of the following City staff / agency comments and public submissions (if any): · Business & Planning Services - June 10, 2002 -in support, generally as shown on the drawings submitted with the application; The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application: · Director of Building - June 13, 2002 · Traffic & Parking Analyst - June 5, 2002 · Region of Waterloo - June 13, 2002 · Grand River Conservation Authority - June 11, 2002. Mr. S. Kay reviewed the comments and enquired if Mrs. Kay had anything further to add. Mrs. B. Kay advised that she had nothing further to add. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Gerard & Brenda Kay requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 0.6 m (2 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Glen Park Crescent from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 16.76 m (55 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 445, Registered Plan 1291, 69 Glen Park Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally as shown on the drawings submitted with Fence Variance Application, Submission No. FN 2002-007. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 13 - JUNE 18, 2002 Submission No.: FN 2002-007 (Cont'd) The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: FN 2002-008 Thomas Marchand 119 Burnaby Crescent Lot 1, Re.qistered Plan 1786 Appearances: In Support: Mr. Thomas Marchand 119 Burnaby Crescent Kitchener ON N2N 2W9 Contra: None Public Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a wooden fence 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Newbury Drive from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 16.76 m (55 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee was in receipt of the following City staff / agency comments and public submissions (if any): · Business & Planning Services - June 10, 2002 -in support; The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application: · Traffic & Parking Analyst - June 5, 2002 · Director of Building - June 13, 2002 · Region of Waterloo - June 13, 2002 · Grand River Conservation Authority - June 11, 2002. Mr. S. Kay reviewed the comments and enquired if Mr. Marchand had anything further to add. Mr. Thomas Marchand advised that he had nothing further to add. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Thomas Marchand requesting permission to erect a wooden fence 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Newbury Drive from the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 16.76 m (55 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the 3ermitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1786, 119 Burnaby Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 14 - JUNE 18, 2002 Mr. P. Britton commented that a significant number of fence applications come before the Committee of Adjustment and are generally supported, save and except those that require a daylight visibility triangle. In this regard, he suggested that staff look at revisions to the Fence By-law that will reduce the number of applications that require consideration by the Committee. In addition, he noted that the restrictions governing fences includes aesthetics; however, the comments received from staff do not clearly address the issue of aesthetics. Ms. J. Given advised that Business & Planning Services staff have initiated discussions with staff of Traffic & Parking Services with respect to modifying regulations under the Fence By-law; however, have not been able to come to an agreement with Traffic staff who favour reviewing this type of application on a case by case basis. She stated that Planning staff will continue to persue this matter with Traffic staff. Ms. Given also advised that the issue of aesthetics refers to the impact the height of the fence has on the streetscape rather than on the materials used. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of June, 2002. Janet Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment