Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2010-01-19 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 19, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs D. Cybalski, B. McColl and A. Head OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:11 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, February 1, 2010, 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 2010-001 Applicant: Ljiljana & Marinko Franjic Property Location: 186 Peach Blossom Crescent Legal Description: Lot 10, Registered Plan 58M-132 Appearances: In Support: M. Franjic R. Cleeves Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to retain a 2.13 m (6.98') high wooden fence having a side yard abutting a street (David Bergey Drive) of 0.46 m (1.5') rather than the required 4.572 m (15'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated December 22, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the corner of Peach Blossom Crescent and David Bergey 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 Four (R-4) with Special Regulation 286R 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 2.13 metres and an exterior side yard setback of 0.46 metres rather than the required 4.57 metres. In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The intent of the 4.57m 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. Given the height and location of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Submission No.: FN 2010-001 JANUARY 19, 2010 fence, staff cannot support the variance as the intent of the By-law is not maintained. Should this Committee consider approval of this application, staff would suggest that the height of the fence be reduced to 1.82 metres (6 feet) and that landscaping between the fence and sidewalk be installed by August 30, 2010. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 18, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Franjic stated that his neighbour to the rear of his property hired a local fence company and the contractor installed both fences at the same time. His fence was installed to mimic his neighbour's fence and he was unaware that it was not in compliance with the City's fence by- law. He advised that he had received a letter from the City in 2008 regarding fences but was unsure what the letter was about because of his poor command of the English language. Mr. Cleeves added that to his knowledge, the neighbour's fence already received approval from the City. Their approval allowed them to keep their fence with a condition that they would landscape the portion of grass between the fence and the sidewalk, which is an approval that would be acceptable the Mr. Franjic. He noted that presently there is continuity with the fence the way it is; to reduce the height would only decrease the aesthetics of the street. The Chair questioned staff as to whether the fence to the rear of the subject property received approval, at a height of 7'. Following a short recess, Ms. vonWesterholt obtained the written approval for the neighbour`s fence. She advised the Committee that 333 Activa Avenue did apply and receive final approval to legalize their fence in the 2008 fence amnesty program. They received conditional approval subject to the installation of landscaping between the fence and the lot line and final approval was given in 2009. She noted that the same letter outlining the amnesty period was mailed to the owner of 186 Peach Blossom Crescent with a contact phone number if clarification was required. Mr. McColl stated that he could support the variance fora 7' fence at this address provided there is a similar condition regarding landscaping, as was applied to the property at the rear. Such an approval would be consistent. Mr. Cleeves advised that the applicant has no concerns with the installation of suitable landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Ljiljana & Marinko Franjic requesting permission to retain a 2.13 m (6.98') high wooden fence having a side yard abutting a street (David Bergey Drive) of 0.46 m (1.5') rather than the required 4.572 m (15'), on Lot 10, Registered Plan 58M-132, 186 Peach Blossom Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owners shall receive approval of a landscaping plan from the Planning Division for landscaping to be installed between the fence and the side lot line, with all approved landscaping to be installed no later than August 30, 2010; and, the owners shall maintain this landscaping. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:38 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of January, 2010. Dianne Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment JANUARY 19, 2010