CITY CLERK
Clause embodied in Report No. 1 of the North York Community Council, as deferred by the North York
Community Council at its meeting held on January 20, 1999.
24(n)Fence By-law Variance Request - 219 Ruth Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for
February 18, 1999, in order to allow the owner of 219 Ruth Avenue to provide an encroachment agreement and
written verification that the adjacent property owner concurs with the height and encroachment of the existing
fence.
(December 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that:
(1)the application for a variance on the fence height be refused as the fence encroaches upon the neighbouring premises
and the owner advised to remove the fence; or
(2)as the Committee of Adjustment has approved the east side yard setback to the deck of 0 metres whereas 1.8 metre is
required which does not include the width of the posts for the fence, that the owner of No. 219 Ruth Avenue be requested
to pursue the matter with the neighbours in order to obtain their approval for the fence to remain as an encroachment over
their premises; and, if approval is obtained from the neighbours to maintain the encroaching fence, that the fence be
reduced in height to 2.13 metres (7') measured from grade.
Mr. David Ho appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter on behalf of
Mr. Tony Chan, property owner of 219 Ruth Avenue.December 9, 1998
To:North York Community Council
From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
Subject:Fence By-Law Variance Request
219 Ruth Avenue - Ward 10
Purpose:
To address request for variance on height of fence on east side of the subject property.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
a)that the application for a variance on the fence height be refused as the fence encroaches upon the neighbouring
premises and the owner advised to remove the fence; or
b)as the Committee of Adjustment has approved the east side yard setback to the deck of 0 metres whereas 1.8 metre is
required which does not include the width of the posts for the fence, that the owner of No. 219 Ruth Avenue be requested
to pursue the matter with the neighbours in order to obtain their approval for the fence to remain as an encroachment over
their premises and, if approval is obtained from the neighbours to maintain the encroaching fence, that the fence be reduced
in height to 2.13 metres (7') measured from grade.
Council Reference/Background/History:
David Ho on behalf of Mr. Tony Chan of 219 Ruth Avenue has requested the variance on the fence on the basis that the
fence is required to be 8 feet high measured from the deck and 11 feet high measured from grade to block the view of the
roof of the neighbour's garage.
The problems at this site commenced in 1996 with (1) a deck structure constructed in the east side yard which encroaches
into the side yard setback in contravention of Zoning By-law No. 7625, Section 6(9) and (2) the attachment to the deck of a
fence greater than 2.13m (7 feet) in height (actual measurement 10' to 12' measured from grade and approximately 38' in
length) in contravention of By-law No. 30901, Section 3.1.3. A permit on record with the Building Division reveals a 3' x 3'
platform and steps in lieu of the deck structure.
Subsequently, charges on both contraventions were brought before the Ontario Court (Provincial Division). Mr. Chan was
convicted and fined $200.00 on each violation on October 19, 1998.
There was a hearing with the Committee of Adjustment on October 22, 1998 with respect to the variance required for the
reconstructed unexcavated deck on the east side. The variance requested was to allow a setback of 0 m in lieu of the
required 1.8 m. That application was approved.
Comments:
A photograph of the deck structure and fence is attached. As there is 0 m setback for the deck structure, it is clear that the
fence is encroaching which is substantiated by a survey as well as being in contravention of By-law No. 30901.
Further, Mr. Ho's depiction in the sketch attached to the variance request does not show that the length of the fence extends
another approximately 8.5 feet beyond the deck structure nor does it reflect the height at 10' - 12' above grade.
Mr. Ho has stated in his variance request that the height of the fence is intended to block the view of the roof of the
neighbour's garage. This statement requires clarification given that the roof of the garage is peaked and would not be an
area used for the purposes of a roof deck.
Mr. Chan would face the problem of cutting into the deck structure in order to remove the fence.
Conclusions:
1) The committee of Adjustment has approved the 0 m setback which does not include the fence; therefore, the fence is
encroaching the neighbour's property and should be removed.
Option:
2) If Mr. Chan can come to an agreement with the neighbour to allow the fence to remain, the City will have no objection
to maintenance of the fence provided it does not exceed 2.13 m in height, measured from grade.
Contact Name:
Donna Perrin, North District Manager
Municipal Standards and Court Services
395-7020
Reviewed by:
Harold BrattenVIRGINIA M. WEST
Director Commissioner
Municipal Licensing and Standards DivisionUrban Planning and Development Services
att.