HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2002-07-23 FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 23, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and A. Galloway.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Mr. B. Sloan, Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst and Ms. J.
Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. P. Britton, Acting 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, August 26, 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 2002-009
Kurt Sinding
2 Shadyridge Place
Lot 64, Re.qistered Plan 1689
Appearances:
In Support:
Mrs. Diana Sinding
2 Shadyridge Place
Kitchener ON N2N 3J1
Contra: None
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail from the rear lot line
and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 20.11 m (66 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 - July 9, 2002 - in support;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority- July 17, 2002.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 16 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-009 (Cont'd)
Mr. P. Britton reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add. Mrs. Diana Sinding
advised that she had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Kurt & Diana Sinding requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence setback 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail, from the rear
lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 20.11 m (66 ft.), having a maximum
height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 64, Registered Plan
1689, 2 Shadyridge Place, 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
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
FN 2002-010
Cathy & Trevor Wilkinson
3 Shadyridge Place
Lot 65, Re.qistered Plan 1689
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. & Mrs. Trevor Wilkinson
3 Shadyridge Place
Kitchener ON N2N 3J1
Contra: None
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail from the rear lot line
and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 19.25 m (63.16 ft.), having a maximum height
of 2.13 m (7 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 - July 17, 2002 - in support, provided the height of the fence is
reduced to 1.8 m within 4.5 m of the lot line abutting Westforest Trail;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority- July 17, 2002.
Mr. P. Britton reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending that the height of the
fence be reduced to 1.8 m and enquired if the applicants had anything further to add. Mr. Trevor
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 17 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-010 (Cont'd)
Wilkinson advised that he would prefer to maintain the 7 ft. height of the fence to ensure security
and privacy of his property. He further advised that he had plans to construct a swimming pool in
the backyard. Mr. P. Britton requested staff to comment on the rationale for the reduction in
height and any impact this may have respecting installation of a pool. Mr. B. Sloan advised that
the rationale is based primarily on streetscape aesthetics given that there are no visibility
concerns with respect to the existing fence. He stated that typically a 6 ft. fence is adequate for
privacy and pool safety. He further advised that staff are currently considering amendments to
the Fence By-law that would permit fences abutting a street to be located within the 4.5 m
setback; however, staff have not determined at what height such a fence would be permitted. He
noted that staff are debating heights of 5 or 6 ft. and consider anything over 6 ft. to be excessive.
In respect to Mr. A. Galloway, Mr. Wilkinson advised that the neighbouring property owner at 7
Shadyridge Place has no concern with the existing fence. In response to further questions, Mr.
Wilkinson pointed out that his property backs onto a greenspace utilized by the public, where
children play and sports events are held. He also noted that in the left corner his property slopes
towards the sidewalk.
In response to a question from Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Wilkinson advised that he intended to
landscape the area between the fence and Westforest Trail.
Mr. A. Galloway commented that he had no difficulty with approving the 7 ft. height of the fence in
this case given there are no visibility concerns. Mr. Britton commented that he also would
support the 7 ft. fence as it is not located right up to the lot line and the applicant intends to
undertake landscaping in the space between the fence and Westforest Trail.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Trevor and Cathy Wilkinson requesting permission to legalize an
existing wooden fence setback 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail, from
the rear lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 19.25 m (63.16 ft.), having a
maximum height of 2.13 m (7 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 65, Registered
Plan 1689, 3 Shadyridge Place, 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
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
FN 2002-011
Petr Litvak
39 Westforest Trail
Lot 101, Re.qistered Plan 1688
Mr. Petr Litvak
39 Westforest Trail
Kitchener ON N2N 3A7
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 18 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-011 (Cont'd)
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 0.91 m (3 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Greengable Way from the rear lot line
and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 23.68 m (77.69 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 - July 9, 2002 - in support;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority- July 17, 2002.
Mr. P. Britton reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if the applicant had anything further to add. Mr. Petr Litvak advised that
he had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Petr Litvak requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden fence
setback 0.91 m (3 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Greengable Way, from the rear lot line and
continuing along the sideyard a distance of 23.68 m (77.69 ft.), having a maximum height of
1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 101, Registered Plan 1688, 39
Westforest Trail, 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
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
FN 2002-012
Martin Vermeer
61 Cedar Crest Street
Lot 100, Re.qistered Plan 1463
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. Martin Vermeer
61 Cedar Crest Street
Kitchener ON N2N 1Y4
Contra:
Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Bisch
35 Cedar Crest Street
Kitchener ON N2N 1Y4
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 19 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-012 (Cont'd)
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra:
Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Bisch
35 Cedar Crest Street
Kitchener ON N2N 1Y4
Neighbourhood Petition
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 0 m from the northwesterly lot line adjacent to Cedar Crest Street from the rear
lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 25.6 m (84 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 - July 9, 2002 - in support;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority- July 17, 2002;
Wayne & Tammy Bisch, 35 Cedar Crest Street - dated received July 17, 2002 - opposed;
concerns raised relate to safety issues respecting visibility of motor
vehicles/pedestrians/cyclists; location and proximity of fence to their driveway/frontyard and
on a rounding street corner; property devaluation and potential for break-ins; and negative
aesthetic impact to surrounding neighbourhood;
Neighbourhood Petition - dated received July 17, 2002 - opposed; concerns raised relate to
safety issues respecting visibility of motor vehicles/pedestrians rounding the street corner and
negative aesthetic impact to surrounding neighbourhood.
Mr. P. Britton requested the applicant to outline details of his application for benefit of all parties
present.
Mr. Martin Vermeer pointed out that initially in applying he had requested a 5 to 6 ft. wooden
fence to be located 1 or 2 ft. inside the lot line. In discussing the application with the Secretary-
Treasurer he had been advised to amend his application to request specific measurements of a 6
ft. fence and a 0 m setback from the lot line. He advised that he wished to make better use of his
sideyard. He further advised that it is his intention to replace an existing 3 ft. fence that is in
disrepair. He stated that he preferred a 6 ft. fence to ensure security and safety of his backyard
for his children and was the owner of a dog. He further pointed out that he would be obtaining a
second dog, a Doberman Pincer in the fall and to prevent persons from reaching over the fence
had proposed to construct the fence at the 6 ft. height. Mr. Vermeer provided photographs of his
property.
Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Bisch advised that they were opposed to the 6 ft. height of the fence for
reasons as stated in their written submission relating to the proximity of the fence to their
frontyard, visibility of backing out of their driveway and traffic rounding the corner of Cedar Crest
Street. Mr. Bisch pointed out that if the fence is constructed as proposed he would not be able to
see up the roadway and had concern with his children playing out of his view.
Mr. Vermeer pointed out that the fence as proposed does not encroach into the daylight corner at
the rounding intersection and Traffic staff have indicated they have no concerns with respect to
visibility. Mr. Vermeer further pointed out that the property owners who signed the petition were
located only on the portion of the street where Mr. & Mrs. Bisch live and neighbours on the other
portion of the street who have to drive around the corner have indicated they have no concern
with the fence.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 20 - JULY 23, 2002
4. Submission No.: FN 2002-012 (Cont'd)
In response to questions from Mr. P. Britton, Mrs. Tammy Bisch advised that she had formulated
the petition and the signators to the petition had given permission for her to be their
spokesperson. Mrs. Bisch also provided photographs showing the subject property from the
location of her front yard.
In response to Mr. D. Cybalski respecting the adequacy of a 5 ft. fence, Mr. Vermeer advised that
he would prefer a 6 ft. fence given that his property slopes toward the sidewalk and he wished to
prevent persons from reaching or seeing over the fence. Mr. Vermeer stated that he would
consider cutting the fence across the corner so that his neighbours could still see up the street.
In response to Mr. Britton, Mr. Sloan advised that he and staff of Traffic & Parking Services had
attended the site and determined the fence would not be located in the daylight corner and would
not pose a visibility problem for traffic. Mr. R. Parent further advised that Traffic staff require a 4.5
m corner visibility daylight triangle adjacent to driveways and in this instance, there is in excess of
double the requirement between the driveway and the proposed fence. Mr. Parent stated that the
neighbours driveway is on the far side of their property and the proposed fence does not pose a
visibility concern.
Mr. P. Britton pointed out that the applicant indicated he was willing to angle the fence across the
corner and proposed that a 4.5 m corner visibility triangle be created. Mr. Vermeer stated that he
did not want to cut the corner that much simply to accommodate his neighbours ability to see
down the street. Following further discussion, Mr. Vermeer stated that he would agree to a 10 ft.
corner visibility triangle at the rear of his property adjacent to Mr. & Mrs. Bisch's property.
In response to Mr. A. Galloway, Mr. B. Sloan advised that amendments to the Fence By-law are
expected to be resolved in the fall of this year. Mr. Galloway commented that in light of proposed
amendments to the Fence By-law he was prepared to approve the fence as applied for.
Mr. Britton proposed that the approval include the condition to alter the fence adjacent to the
neighbouring property to provide a 10 ft. daylight triangle given that the applicant has indicated
his willingness to do so.
Mr. Galloway commented that he would be prepared to include the 10 ft. daylight triangle
provided it served the purpose of addressing concerns raised by Mr. & Mrs. Bisch and the
applicant was agreeable.
Mr. & Mrs. Bisch indicated that altering the fence to include the daylight triangle would be
satisfactory to them and Mr. Vermeer stated that he would agree to amend his application to
include the daylight corner.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Martin Vermeer requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 0 m
from the northwesterly lot line adjacent to Cedar Crest Street, from the rear lot line and
continuing along the sideyard a distance of 25.6 m (84 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.82 m
(6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 100, Registered Plan 1463, 61 Cedar
Crest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That subject to the satisfaction of Traffic & Parking Services, the fence shall be modified
to provide a 3.04 m (10 ft.) corner visibility triangle at the northwest corner of the subject
property adjacent to the property at 35 Cedar Crest Street.
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 - 21 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
FN 2002-013
Thurai Thiagarajah
3 Greencroft Court
Lot 82, Re.qistered Plan 1688
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. Thurai Thiagarajah
3 Greencroft Court
Kitchener ON N2N 3H6
Contra: None
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 1 m (3.3 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail from the rear lot line
and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 15.24 m (50 ft.), having a maximum height of
2.43 m (8 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 - July 17, 2002 - in support, provided the height of the fence is
reduced to 1.8 m within 4.5 m of the lot line abutting Westforest Trail;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority- July 17, 2002.
Mr. P. Britton reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending a reduction in the
height of the fence to 6 ft. and enquired if the applicant had anything further to add.
Mr. Thurai Thiagarajah advised that he wished to maintain the 8 ft. height of his fence so that it
would be the same height as the fence on an abutting property. He stated that he could lower the
fence; however, it would result in differing heights between the two adjoining fences.
In response to questions, Mr. B. Sloan advised the same comments respecting streetscape
aesthetics would apply to this application. Mr. Sloan commented that staff are of the opinion that
a 6 ft. fence is adequate and anything over that is excessive.
In response to a question from Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Thiagarajah advised that he did not intend to
landscape the space between the fence and Westforest Trail. In response to further questions,
Mr. Thiagarajah advised that there was approximately 2 ft. of lattice on top of the fence which
would permit him to reduce the height of the fence without major reconstruction.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Thurai Thiagarajah requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence setback 1 m (3.3 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail, from the rear
lot line and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 15.24 m (50 ft.), having a maximum
height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 82, Registered Plan
1688, 3 Greencroft Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 22 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-013 (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.
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 2002-014
Deborah M. Kugler
119 Westforest Trail
Lot 84, Re.qistered Plan 1688
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. Deborah Kugler
119 Westforest Trail
Kitchener ON N2N 3B1
Contra: None
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 0 m from the lot line adjacent to Greengable Way from the rear lot line and
continuing along the sideyard a distance of 19.35 m (63 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 - July 9, 2002 - in support;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority- July 17, 2002.
Mr. P. Britton reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if the applicant had anything further to add. Ms. Deborah Kugler
advised that she had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Deborah Kugler requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden
fence setback 0 m from the lot line adjacent to Greengable Way, from the rear lot line and
continuing along the sideyard a distance of 19.35 m (63 ft.), having a maximum height of 1.82
m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 84, Registered Plan 1688, 119
Westforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 23 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-014 (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
(Fences) is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
FN 2002-015
Rai & Mirza Nabbi
2 Greencroft Court
Lot 81, Re.qistered Plan 1688
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Public Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
When this application was called forward it was determined that no one was in attendance to
support the application. The Committee was advised that notification was given to the applicant
respecting the hearing this date. The Committee was further advised that the application could
be deferred to another date or the Committee could proceed to hear the application in the
absence of the applicant. Following a brief discussion it was agreed that given staff are
recommending approval and that no one was in attendance in opposition to the application, the
Committee would proceed to consider the application.
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
wooden fence 3.65 m (12 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail from the rear lot line
and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 15.54 m (51 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 - July 9, 2002 - in support;
The following had no concerns or comments with respect to this application:
· Director of Building - July 5, 2002
· Traffic & Parking Analyst - July 17, 2002
· Region of Waterloo - July 16, 2002
· Grand River Conservation Authority - July 17, 2002.
Mr. P. Britton requested staff to comment on the application. Mr. B. Sloan provided an overview
of the application noting that it was similar to several others considered this date in that it
requested legalization of an existing 6 ft. fence located within the 4.5 m setback from an abutting
street. Mr. Sloan advised that staff are recommending approval of the fence.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 24 - JULY 23, 2002
Submission No.: FN 2002-015 (Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Rai & Mirza Nabbi requesting permission to legalize an existing wooden
fence setback 3.65 m (12 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Westforest Trail, from the rear lot line
and continuing along the sideyard a distance of 15.54 m (51 ft.), having a maximum height of
1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 81, Registered Plan 1688, 2
Greencroft Court, 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
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 23rd day of July, 2002.
Janet Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
