City Of Kingston Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Monday October 20, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. Sir John A. Macdonald Room, City Hall

Transcription

1 City Of Kingston Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Monday at 12:00 p.m. Sir John A. Macdonald Room, City Hall Members Present Councillor Hutchison Mr. Tony Dowling Ms. Nicki Diak Members Absent Councillor Glover Mr. Blaine Fudge Staff Members Present Ms. Annette Lees-Bauml, Property Standards Officer Ms. Mary Shultz, Property Standards Officer Mr. Del Stowe, Manager, Building Services Ms. Heather Woodland, Committee Clerk Others Present Approximately 3 members of the public Meeting to Order Ms. Woodland, Committee Clerk, called the meeting to order at 12:02 pm. She asked for a motion to elect a Chair for the interim, as neither the Chair nor Vice Chair was present. Seconded by Ms. Diak

2 Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Page 2 That Councillor Hutchison be nominated as Acting Chair for the Appeals Committee for the meeting on. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Ms. Diak Seconded by Mr. Dowling That the agenda be approved. Confirmation of Minutes Moved by Ms. Diak Seconded by Mr. Dowling That the Minutes of Appeals Committee Meeting Number held Monday September 15, 2014 be approved. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest There were none. Delegations There were none. Briefings There were none. Business a) New Appeals i. 12 Holman Drive Property Standards Officer Annette Lees-Bauml Ms. Lees-Bauml provided an update on the property, and passed photographs to the Committee. She noted that staff were called to property due to concerns with safety, including a hole where the foundation was excavated under permit and filled with engineered fill. She explained that there was an Order to Remedy issued to fence or fill, and that the order to fill comes from the section of by-law that requires land to be clear

3 Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Page 3 of deep ruts and holes. She added that there is no legislation requiring the hole to be filled, and that the hole is not deep enough to require a fence according to the Ministry of Labour. Mr. Stowe stated that this has been an ongoing situation for longer than a year, and that he had met with the owner and suggested that a compromise could be that the fence may not necessarily meet fence by-law. He explained that the concern is to appease the neighbourhood and at the same time not incur additional costs to owner and ruin the fill. He indicated that that there is a park across the street and that there are concerns with children getting over to the property, and that a temporary fence been in place for a long period of time. In response to Ms. Diak s inquiry about the measurements of the depth of the hole, Ms. Lees-Bauml explained that the Ministry of Labour came to measure the hole, and that the hole was not over 8 feet in any area. She explained that if the hole was over 8 feet, the Ministry of Labour would have issued an order. Ms. Diak suggested that staff provide a google bird s eye view for the property so that it is easier to tell the lay of the land and the surrounding properties. Councillor Hutchison, Chair, asked for the owner to provide comments. Mr. Wensing provided an explanation and an overview of the work already been completed on the property, and indicated that he had completed all work that has been requested to the present date. He noted that he had completed work, such as the temporary fence, that was above and beyond the requirements from the Ministry of Labour. In response to Mr. Stowe s question regarding timeline for building, Mr. Wensing clarified that there is a hold-up with regards to waiting for a court decision before being able to move forward. Councillor Hutchison opened the floor up for questions from the members of the public. Mr. Janssen, Holman Drive, explained that his property is located on the west side, and that his main concern is the safety of his children due to the proximity of the hole to his property. Mr. Roten, Riverside Drive commented that property in question is an eyesore to the community. Mr. Zable, Holman Drive commented that the fence is not a secure fence, and requested that something be done in a semi-permanent way. Councillor Hutchison suggested that permanent fencing is problematic when the building has not yet been completed. In response, Mr. Wensing stated that there are

4 Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Page 4 concerns with the costs of permanent fencing, as it has to be taken down when construction starts, and that he is looking for different ideas to fall within the guidelines and attempt to satisfy everyone s concerns. Councillor Hutchison proposed that the owner work with the materials already provided, and that the aesthetic component is the weaker component. He commented that it is necessary to look at what is the nearest or best practice as a starting point. He further suggested that there be a solid fence-like structure along the west side of the property and a snow fencing barred and staked for the remainder of the hole for a long-term temporary solution. Based on the Committee s discussion regarding the fence running along the West side, and the issue that it would restrict machine access to the property, Mr. Janssen agreed that Mr. Wensing would have permission to have access to the property through Mr. Janssen s yard for construction purposes. Seconded by Ms. Diak That the Appeals Committee agrees to extend the time for completion of work to November 14, 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the fence running along the west side of the property be constructed in compliance with the By-Law Number , A By-Law to Regulate Fences, with the exception of the concrete footing not required; and 2. That the fence at the south of the property running from the east to the west be constructed to the width of the frontage of the property and proceed north down the east side of the property for 16 feet, and be railed and posted every six to eight feet as necessary, continuing with a temporary fence running for the remainder of the east side and north end of the property to fully enclose the excavation. ii. 31 Riverside Drive Property Standards Officer Mary Shultz Ms. Shultz spoke to the details of the Order to Remedy, and stated she attended the property and met with the complainant. She noted that the tree appears to be diseased or damaged in some way, and that most of the foliage had been dropped at that time. She indicated that a report was provided to the Property Standards department by a certified arborist which confirmed that tree had a disease. She referenced the Property Standards By-Law which states that a property should be free of trees diseased, decayed, or dead. Councillor Hutchison inquired about the costs of tree removal, and asked Mr. Kennedy to speak to the issue on behalf of Mr. McKercher.

5 Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Page 5 Mr. Kennedy explained that he was retained in August, and spoke to the process involved with identifying diseases in trees. He provided information on the type of tree, and outlined different symptoms of a variety of diseases, and stated that there is a point of contention in diagnosing the diseases in the trees. He explained that the lack of leaves does not mean that the tree is dying or that it is dead. He identified that there are still young green leaves on the trees, which matches symptoms with another disease, and stated that it does not render a tree immediately structurally unsound. Mr. Kennedy continued to explain that the tree will still live for several years, and the removal of the tree will prevent the owner from enjoying his property. He stated that the disease will spread to only elm trees, and not to other trees in that vicinity, and noted that waiting until spring would not cause damage if he is correct. Seconded by Ms. Diak That the Appeals Committee agrees to extend the time for compliance with the Order to Remedy related to Section of By-Law against the property owned by Brian McKercher at 31 Riverside Drive to May 1, a) Property Updates i. 655 Graceland Avenue (Lou Vadala) Property Standards Officer Mary Shultz The appeal regarding Section 4.46 was heard at the August 18, 2014 meeting. The time for compliance was extended to October 10, Ms. Shultz stated that she attended the property on Friday, October 17, 2014, and noted that one building had not yet been demolished as per the Order to Remedy. Seconded by Mr. Diak That the Appeals Committee agrees to uphold the Order to Remedy related to Section 4.46 of By-Law against the property owned by Mr. Lou Vadala at 655 Graceland Street.

6 Appeals Committee Meeting Number Minutes Page 6 Motions Notices Of Motion Other Business Correspondence a) Correspondence received from Mr. Edward Kennedy, dated October 2, 2014, regarding Order to Remedy Number CEPS for 31 Riverside Drive. Date and time of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Appeals Committee is scheduled for November 17, Adjournment Moved by Ms. Diak Seconded by Mr. Dowling That the meeting of the Appeals Committee adjourn at 1:40pm.