Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2009-07-21 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 21, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs M. Hiscott & B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. M. Hiscott, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 11:31 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 the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. 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, August 24, 2009, 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 2009-005 Applicant: Lionel & Rosa Legault Property Location: 75 Ripley Crescent Legal Description: Lot 107, Registered Plan 1384 Appearances: In Support: L. Legault K. Phillips Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing 1.82 m (6') high fence located 0.25m (0.82') from the exterior side lot line (abutting Ripley Crescent) rather than the required 1.5m (4.92') from the exterior side lot line; and, legalization of a 1.82m (6') high fence located within the 4.57m (15') driveway visibility triangle. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 15, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at the west corner of Ripley Crescent in the planning community of Forest Heights. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan, is zoned Residential Three (R-3) and is located in a neighbourhood consisting primarily of single detached dwellings. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City of Kitchener Fence By-law to legalize an existing 1.82 metre (6ft) high fence, 0.25 metres from the exterior side lot line whereas the by- law requires a setback of at least 1.5 metres from the exterior side lot line. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the fence be permitted to be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas the Fence By-law does not permit fences within the DVT. The applicant wishes to legalize the wood board fence in the current location as it serves as a pool enclosure for an existing in-ground pool. It should be noted that the applicant previously applied to legalize their corner lot fence through a Corner Lot Fence Exemption Application in 2008 (Application CLF-289). The fence was exempted by the City, except that portion within the DVT, which was not legalized due to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 12 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission No.: FN 2009-005 (Cont'd visibility and safety concerns. Consequently, the applicant has submitted the subject fence variance application in orderto legalize the remainder of the fence within the DVT. In considering the proposed fence variance, Planning staff offer the following comments. On a site visit to the property on July 2, 2009, Planning staff noted that in addition to providing privacy for the owners, the purpose of the current fence is to ensure that the adjacent pool is safely enclosed. The pool is located immediately behind the subject fence. In reviewing historical aerial photographs of the site, it appears that the pool has been in place since at least 1997. The by-law stipulating that the fences are not permitted in driveway visibility triangles has been in effect since at least 1992. It should be noted that in order to comply with the City's Fence By-law for swimming pool enclosures, the fence must be at least 1.52 m in height regardless of the date of construction of the pool. Building Division staff has advised that building permits for in-ground pools were not necessary until 2003. Therefore, prior 2003, it was the owner's responsibility to ensure that pool enclosures complied with the Fence By-law and to this day it is the owner's responsibility to ensure that corner lot fences comply with the By-law. While staff is of the opinion that enclosing the pool is a highly important safety measure that should not be neglected, staff does have concerns with the location of the fence. Staff confirms that the existing fence is located within the DVT. Transportation Planning has advised that the wood board fence will pose a significant visibility issue, and therefore safety issue, for motorists exiting the driveway and for pedestrians traversing the municipal sidewalk. Consequently, staff cannot support the variance to legalize the existing fence. It should be noted, however, that Transportation Planning staff has advised that if the portion of the fence that is located within the DVT is removed and replaced with chain link fencing, it would be able to support the variance. However, visibility through the chain link fence would have to be maintained at all times and, therefore, the owner's goal of privacy may be compromised. Should the Committee decide to approve this solution, a condition should be included that if at any point in time the existing fence is required to be removed (for installation of chain link fencing}, temporary snow fencing shall be installed at the owner's expense in orderto not compromise the safety around the pool. It may also be possible for the owner to relocate a portion of the fence onto the driveway so as to allow the DVT to be maintained. The applicant should confirm the possibility of this solution with Transportation Planning Division prior to modifying the fence. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Legault advised that he purchased this property in 1991 and the fence and the pool were installed at that time. He advised that he had received a letter from the City that his fence could remain as long as he installed some plant material by June 1, 2009, but he didn't get it planted in time. Ms. von Westerholt advised that in late 2007, Council allowed anyone with an existing corner lot fence that did not complied with the By-Law, to make an application between January and March 2008 for approval of their existing fence. There would be 2 issues to address with these applications: the owner would be required to install landscaping along the outside of the fence, and fences would have to comply with the requirement for corner visibility triangles and driveway visibility triangles. Staff dealt with these non-complying fences except for those with non-complying driveway visibility triangles and day light visibility triangles; which must now come to this Committee. She advised that unfortunately a lot of things on the ground have already been set; whereas, in most other cases, the driveway visibility triangle could at least be partially met. Mr. McColl noted the suggestion in the staff report that the wooden fence in the driveway visibility triangle could be replaced with a chain link fencing which would allow for visibility and still meet the requirements for fences around pools. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 13 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission No.: FN 2009-005 (Cont'd~ Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Lionel & Rosa Legault requesting legalization of an existing 1.82 m (6'} high wooden fence located 0.25m (0.82') from the exterior side lot line (abutting Ripley Crescent) rather than the required 1.5m (4.92') from the exterior side lot line; and, legalization of a 1.82m (6') high chain link or wrought iron fence to be located within the 4.57m (15'} driveway visibility triangle, on Lot 107, Registered Plan 1384, 75 Ripley Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the existing 1.82m (6') high wooden fence within the driveway visibility triangle shall be removed and immediately replaced with a 1.82 (6') high chain link orwrought iron fence. 2. That if at any time the existing fence is required to be removed, the applicant shall, at their expense, install temporary snow fencing in order not to compromise safety around the pool. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission No.: FN 2009-006 Applicant: Perry & Diane Paquette Property Location: 2 Hidden Creek Drive Legal Description: Lot 45, Registered Plan 58M-52 Appearances: In Support: P. Paquette Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of a 1.2m (4') high wooden fence located in the required 4.57m (15'} corner visibility triangle at the intersection of Hidden Creek Drive and Westforest Trail rather than the permitted 0.9m (2.9') high fence, and legalization of a 1.2m (4'} high wooden fence, and a 1.52m (5') high wooden fence located 0.15m (0.5') from the exterior side lot line (abutting Westforest Trail} rather than the permitted 0.9m (2.95'} high fence. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 29, 2009, advising that the subject property contains a single detached dwelling and is located at the intersection of Hidden Creek Drive and Westforest Trail on the west side of Kitchener. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4), with special regulation 251, in By-law 85-1. The special regulation permits a minimum lot width of 9.1 metres for properties to which it is applied. The applicant is requesting a variance from Chapter 630 (fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code in order to permit an existing wood board fence with a height varying from 1.5 metres (5 feet) to 1.2m (4 feet} located 0.15 metres (6 inches) from the front lot line rather than the required maximum permitted height of 0.9 metre (3 feet} within 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 14 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission No.: FN 2009-006 (Cont'd property line. The fence in question was constructed in the spring of 2009 and was the subject of a zoning violation dated June 2, 2009. Staff notes that during 2008, an extensive notification programme for all owners of corner-lots in the City of Kitchener was undertaken by the Planning Department. As part of that programme, an information letter was sent to all owners of corner lot properties within the city along with a copy of the City's Fencing Information Brochure. Staff has confirmed that 2 Hidden Creek Drive was on the mailing list for that initiative, and that the correspondence was addressed to the parties currently seeking approval of this application. The applicant has noted on the application form that when constructing the fence, he replicated other corner lot fences in the neighbourhood. Staff note that many of the fences in the immediate vicinity of the subject property received full or conditional approval as part of the corner lot fence identification programme identified above. The application also notes that the applicant contacted the City for information at the time of the construction, but that a miscommunication between the parties involved resulted in the fence being constructed in a manner that does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 630. In order for the subject fence to comply with the Municipal Code requirements, it would have to be reduced to no more than 0.91 metres (3 feet) in height at its current location, or be set back no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the property line at its current height. Staff notes that the property line is located approximately 0.3 metres (1 foot} in from the edge of the sidewalk. The subject fence also encroaches into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) as defined in subsection 630.1.3 of the Municipal Code, and must be reduced to be no more than 0.91 metres (3 feet) in height. The reason for the required setback from the property line is two-fold; setbacks keep sight- lines open for pedestrians and vehicles where sidewalks cross driveways and intersections and allows space for landscaping, creating an attractive streetscape and pedestrian environment. A wood-board privacy fence constructed at the property line with no landscape buffer creates a "wall on the street" environment that is discouraged. Fencing greater than 0.91 metres in height within the CVT creates a pedestrian and traffic hazard, as it obstructs sight lines for vehicles entering andlorturning at that intersection. As noted above, the subject fence was constructed one year after staff underwent an extensive notification campaign for corner lot property owners regarding the fencing regulations applicable to their properties. Relief from these regulations was a part of that notification program, recognizing that not all corner lot owners may have been aware of the restrictions on corner lot fence construction. Such an argument cannot be made in this case, as staff has confirmed that the subject property and the applicants were identified and included in the information mail out stage of that notification program. Planning staff feels that the fence panel encroaching into the Corner Visibility Triangle must be removed or reduced in height in order to comply with the Municipal Code, as traffic safety at this intersection onto a community collector road is paramount. The remainder of the fence, ranging in height from 1.5 metres (5 feet) to 1.2m (4 feet) located 0.15 metres (6 inches) from the front lot line rather than the required maximum permitted height of 0.9 metre (3 feet) within 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the property line, will need to be reduced in height or moved to comply with the required setback. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Paquette stated that the fence variance is entirely his fault. He stated that he called the City for information and was told a 5' high fence is permitted; however, he felt that he may not have explained properly. He stated that there are no visibility issues with this fence. In this regard Mr. Paquette submitted photocopies of color photographs of his fence. He advised that the 4' to 5' high plants on the median on Hidden Creek Drive are very much a visibility problem. Mr. Lewis advised that he has contacted City Operations staff to have these plants cut down. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 15 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission No.: FN 2009-006 (Cont'd~ Mr. Paquette then offered to reduce the first 2 sections of the fence to 3' in height. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff does not agree with Mr. Paquette's proposal on principle, but did agree that if the portion of the fence within the corner visibilitytriangle isreduced to 3' in height she would have no concerns about visibility. A brief discussion took place about landscaping between the fence and the lot line. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Perry & Diane Paquette requesting legalization of a 1.2m (4') high wooden fence, and a 1.52m (5') high wooden fence located 0.15m (0.5') from the exterior side lot line (abutting Westforest Trail} rather than the permitted 0.9m (2.95') from the exterior side lot line, on Lot 45, Registered Plan 58M-52, 2 Hidden Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the portion of the existing fence located within the corner visibility triangle at Hidden Creek Drive and Westforest Trail shall be immediately reduced to the permitted height of 0.9m (2.9'). 2. That the owners shall provide landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk by June 1, 2010. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission No.: FN 2009-007 Applicant: Kerry & Dawn Orser Property Location: 120 Max Becker Drive Legal Description: Part Block 8, Registered Plan 58M-172, being Part 98, Reference Plan 58R-12815 Appearances: In Support: D. Orser Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of a 1.82m (6') high fence having a driveway visibility triangle of 2.44m (8') ratherthan the required 4.57m (15'}. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 6, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the corner of Lemonbalm Street and Max Becker Drive and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The land is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Three (R- 4} in By-law 85-1. The applicants have requested relief from the City's fence by-law to legalize an existing wooden corner lot fence that encroaches into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT} and is within 1.5 metres of the exterior side lot line. The fence is 1.82 metres (6 ft} in height rather than the permitted maximum of 0.91 m (3 feet). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 16 JULY 21, 2009 3. Submission No.: FN 2009-007 (Cont'd In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The purpose of Fence By-law Article Five "Fences on Corner Lots" is to maintain pedestrian and vehicular safety regarding visibility triangles and to protect neighbourhood aesthetics by prohibiting large fences from being built too close to the exterior side lot line. A Council resolution of December 10, 2007, with regards to corner lot fences, resulted in a city- wide exemption application process for corner lot fences not conforming to the setback requirements under Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The owner of 120 Max Becker pursued submitting an application under this process in February 2008 to remedy their fence situation, however, they were allegedly advised that their fence complied with City requirements and were told that it was not necessary that they submit an application. More recently, the owner applied for a pool permit and was informed that the fence was indeed in contravention of the fence by-law with respect to a driveway visibility issue for the adjacent driveway to the north. As such, the owner agreed to move two sections of their fence to improve visibility as well as submit the Minor Variance application currently before the Committee. A site visit was conducted by Planning staff on July 3, 2009. Previously, the fence was 2.74 m (9 feet} in height and encroached in the DVT with the fence forming a right angle at the intersection of the side lot line and the lot line abutting the subject driveway. Upon being informed that the fence exceeded the maximum height permitted by the City of Kitchener, as instructed, the applicant reduced the height of the fence to 1.82 metres (6 feet). The applicant also modified the portion of the fence within the DVT to reduce the encroachment, but still accommodate the location of a pool that is currently being installed and maintain the applicant's side yard amenity area. In order to comply with the City's fencing requirements for swimming pool enclosures, the fence must be at least 1.52 m in height, limiting the ability to reduce the fence height to 0.91 m as required by the by-law. Furthermore, the pool deck has already been constructed, limiting the ability to increase the fence setback from the exterior side lot line. It should be noted that if at any point in time the fence is required to be removed (for pool construction purposes or a decision made by the Committee of Adjustment), thus compromising the safety around the pool, that temporary snow fencing will have to be installed at the owner's expense. The resulting DVT maintains a length of 2.44 metres along Lemonbalm Street and a depth of 2.44 metres into the property, instead of the required 4.57 metre by 4.57 metre triangle. The DVT provides adequate visibility between the driveway and the sidewalk and ensures that pedestrians along the sidewalk and vehicles in the driveway have clear sight lines of each other. In addition, the applicant has also added landscaping within the DVT where the fence once stood. The landscaping softens the visual impact of the fence on the streetscape and adds aesthetic value to the neighbourhood. Staff note that it would also be beneficial to provide landscaping between the fence and the exterior side lot line. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. In response to the staff report Ms. Orser advised that they had planted trumpet vines along the fence this past week-end. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Kerry & Dawn Orser requesting legalization of a 1.82m (6'} high fence having a driveway visibility triangle of 2.44m (8'} rather than the required 4.57m (15'), on Part Block 8, Registered Plan 58M-172, being Part 98, Reference Plan 58R-12815, 120 Max Becker Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 JULY 21, 2009 3. Submission No.: FN 2009-007 (Cont'd~ 1. That the owners shall provide landscaping between the fence and the exterior side lot line by June 1, 2010. That if at any point in time the fence is required to be removed, the applicants shall , at their expense, install temporary snow fencing in order not to compromise safety around the pool, at their expense. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission No.: FN 2009-008 Applicant: Alicia & Andrew Bennett Property Location: 365 Village Crescent Legal Description: Lot 76, Registered Plan 1122 Appearances: In Support: A. & A. Bennett Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a 2.44m (8') high fence to be located on the exterior side lot line (abutting Stoneybrook Crescent) rather than the required set back of 4.57m (15') from the exterior side lot line. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 6, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the corner of Village Crescent and Stonybrook Drive and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City of Kitchener Fence By-law to construct a wooden fence on a corner lot with a height of 2.44 metres setback 0 m from the lot line abutting Stonybrook Drive rather than the required setback of 4.57 metres. The applicant wishes to construct the 2.44 metre high fence to provide greater privacy in their side yard. In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The 4.57 metre setback requirement is required to maintain pedestrian and vehicular safety and to protect neighbourhood aesthetics by prohibiting large fences from being built in close proximity to the exterior side lot line and public sidewalk. With respect to neighbourhood aesthetics, the City is committed to providing pedestrian-friendly streets that contribute to a pleasant walking environment and attractive streetscape. The proposed fence provides no set back from the lot line. Awood-board privacy fence constructed at the lot line creates a "wall on the street" environment that is discouraged as it adversely effects pedestrian enjoyment of public roadways and walkways. As such, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the variance does not meet the general intent of the Fence By-law and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 JULY 21, 2009 4. Submission No.: FN 2009-008 (Cont'd The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Bennett advised that there is apre-existing chain link fence but the proposed fence has not yet been built. He advised that they purchased this property 5 years ago and they have been upgrading it. Now they have reached the point when they want to build the fence. Mr. Bennett stated that they would like an 8' high fence for privacy due to the elevation of the lot and its location across the street from the plaza. They also consider that this fence will be more aesthetically pleasing. The Chair questioned staff what their reasons are for objecting to this fence. Ms. von Westerholt stated that the applicants must have known about the plaza when they purchased this property. Also, from a streetscape perspective, an 8' high fence is not aesthetically pleasing. The Chair stated that an 8' high wooden fence with no setback from the property line is not a minor variance and not appropriate. Mr. Paquette questioned whether a compromise could be reached on the height, noting that they would like to have a wooden fence. Ms. von Westerholt stated that a wooden fence still creates a wall on the street, and the only way that staff could agree is if the fence comes much more in line with the By-Law requirements. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That consideration of Submission No. FN 2009-008, 365 Village Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE DEFERRED to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday August 18, 2009, to allow the applicants to negotiate a compromise on a proposed fence which is mutually agreeable to both staff and the applicants. Carried 5. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le al Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: FN 2009-009 Damian & Danielle Jaweski 4 Seabrook Drive Lot 17, Registered 58M-374 D. Jaweski None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to locate a 2.44m (8') high fence 0.61 m (2'} from the exterior side lot line (abutting Woodbine Avenue} rather than the required setback of 4.57m (15') from the exterior side lot line. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 14, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the corner of Seabrook Drive and Woodbine Avenue and is developed with asemi-detached dwelling. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Fence By-law to legalize an existing wooden corner lot fence with a height of 2.44 metres (8 feet) and an exterior side yard setback of 0.61 metres (2 feet) rather than the required 4.5 metres (15 feet). The required setback for a fence which is 1.8 metre (6 feet) in height is 1.5 metres (5 feet). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 JULY 21, 2009 5. Submission No.: FN 2009-009 (Cont'd In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The 1.5m setback requirement is required to maintain pedestrian and vehicular safety and to protect neighbourhood aesthetics by prohibiting large fences from being built in close proximity to the exterior side lot line and public sidewalk. With respect to neighbourhood aesthetics, the City is committed to providing pedestrian-friendly streets that contribute to a pleasant walking environment and attractive streetscape. The proposed fence provides little set back from the lot line and only provides approximately 0.61 metres (2 feet) between the fence and the sidewalk for a landscaped area. This limits the amount of potential vegetation that could be added to improve the facade of the fence along the sidewalk and as a result does not promote a more aesthetically pleasing walkway experience as a pedestrian along the streetscape. Staff note that the existing fence provides for the required Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) for the adjacent property. This DVT must be maintained and cannot be altered if future changes to the fence are required. Although the DVT has been accounted for in the design of the fence, the main intent of the fence bylaw to provide appropriate setbacks to higher fences has not been maintained and staff can not support a 2.44 metres (8 foot) fence at this location. Considering the landscaping attempt in front of the fence, staff suggest that the current setback could be maintained if the height of the fence is reduced to a maximum of 1.8 metre (6 feet). The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Jaweski submitted photographs of the subject fence, noting that it had been erected 2 months ago. The fence ranges in height from 5.5' to 7.8' and has been set back 2' from the property line and 3' - 3.5' from the sidewalk. He advised that there will be a school built across the street and a public mail box already exists on that side of the property. Their intent in constructing the fence was to provide privacy but not to seclude themselves from their neighbours. Further, landscaping has been provided. Mr. Jaweski advised that they were aware of the fence By-Law and they called hydro to do a locate. They also took the driveway visibility triangle into consideration, and spoke to their neighbours about the fence. Ms. von Westerholt advised that the height of the fence is the most significant problem. She recommended that the height of the fence be stepped down. Mr. Jaweski stated that if they reduce the height of the fence by removing boards then the front of the fence would only be 4' high. Mr. McColl stated that he has difficulty with people building fences that do not comply with the by-law. He stated that other people in Mr. Jaweski's neighbourhood will want to build similar fences. Mr. Jaweski advised that other people in his neighbourhood have already built similar fences. He noted that his neighbour's fence is 10' high, but he is not on a corner lot. Mr. Chair suggested that Mr. Jaweski remove 1 board from the top of his fence for the portion that is within 1.5m of the lot line along Woodbine Avenue. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Jaweski advised that the highest portion of the fence would be 7'3" once the board has been removed. He agreed to amend his application as recommended by the Chair. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Damian & Danielle Jaweski requesting permission for a wooden fence of varying heights, to a maximum height of 2.2m (7.25'}, located 0.61 m (2') from the exterior side lot line (abutting Woodbine Avenue) rather than the required setback of 4.57m (15') from the exterior side lot line, on Lot 17, Registered Plan 58M-374, 4 Seabrook Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 JULY 21, 2009 5. Submission No.: FN 2009-009 (Cont'd~ 1. That the owners shall remove 1 board from the top of that portion of the fence located within 1.52m (5') of the lot line along Woodbine Avenue. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:19 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of July, 2009. Dianne Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment