Good evening everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order for the committee of adjustment for August 18th uh 2026. The committee members in attendance this evening are Kevin Antonitis, FA Billing, Adam Mer's head is online, and I myself, Daniel Collins, uh committee member Dylan Bailey sends his regrets he couldn't make it. Staff members present this evening are Walter Basik, the manager of community planning, Wing Puh is our technical support specialist, and Delhara Abby Wordina is our secretary treasurer. Members of the public are advised that our meetings are li live livereamed by the town of Grimby. Individuals and media may be audibly and/or visually recorded during this meeting. As a reminder, all electronic devices are to be in silent mode during our committee meeting. I'm just going to start with an overview of the how the committee works. Um what you can expect this evening and uh then the committee is going to go into just a bit of busy work and after that we will hear the applications we have this evening. So for an overview of the procedures, the purpose of the application and relative correspondence will be heard following which the applicant will be given the opportunity to address the application. Any person concerned with the application will then be given an opportunity to speak. At the conclusion of the discussion, the committee will render a decision and advise of any applicable conditions. Copies of the decisions will be mailed to the applicant or agent and to any other person who files a written request. To request a copy of the decision, please email Delhara abortina, the secretary treasurer, and her email is coa grimby.ca. You can come in. Yep. The applicant, the town of Grimby, the minister or a specified person or public body has the right to appeal either the decision itself or the conditions of consent to the Ontario Land Tribunal within 20 days of the date of giving of notice under subsection 17 uh for a consent application and within 20 days of the date of decision for a minor variance application. Specified persons and certain public bodies include public utilities, but do not include an individual or community association. Everyone present will be given an opportunity to comment on the applications being heard. Please address your comments and questions through me, the chair. We also ask that all communication be uh held at the microphone because we have some folks online and they want to they have to be able to hear this meeting. Each participant will be provided five minutes to speak. Each participant may only speak once. If you hear your uh comments presented by someone else, please do not duplicate your remarks. When you are called, we ask that you state your name and address for the record. Agencies commenting on applications may request that certain conditions be imposed. Voicing objections to these conditions will not adversely affect the committee's decision. All members of the committee have viewed the properties on the agenda tonight and are familiar with the lands that are subject to the applications. Do any members of the committee have uh peinary interest with respect to the applications that are before us this evening? Okay, I see none. We will now consider the adoption of the agenda for this evening. Would someone please make a motion to adop adopt the agenda as presented? So moved. >> So moved. Thank you. Moved by Kevin and seconded. Adam. Thank you. and we'll just take a vote on that. All in favor, raise your hand. I see no one opposed. That is carried. Are there any requests for withdrawal or adjournment? >> No. >> No. Okay. Thank you. Have the committee members had the opportunity to review the minutes from July 21st, 2026? And are there any questions or comments about those minutes? Okay, I see none. Can I have a mover to approve the minutes? Fay. Thank you. and a seconder on that, Adam. Thank you. Okay, let's vote on that. Uh, all in favor, uh, raise your hand or say I. I see no one opposed. That's carried. Okay, now we're going to hear the applications this evening. We have seven applications and we're going to start with B0326 for 59 Park Road South and I'll turn it over to um, our secretary treasurer to read the correspondence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just getting my presentation up. Um, so B 0326 for 59 Park Road South. Um the purpose of this application is it's a conservation lot to be severed and conveyed to the Bruce Trail Conservancy. Approximately 1.53 hectares to be preserved and protected as part of the Bruce Trail Conservation Corridor. Approximately 74 m of the Bruce Trail optimum route crosses this part of the property thereby securing safe public access to the Niagara escarment and protecting and enhancing habitat for species at risk. Lot to be retained by owner is approximately.83 hectares developed with a house with no change in use proposed as part of this application. This is um an image of uh what is planned like the [clears throat] site plan that was circulated along with the notice of hearing. This is um an aerial view of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and uh these are the agencies that have provided comments. I will summarize those comments for you now. Planning staff recommend that consent application B0326 for 59 Park Road South be approved subject to the following conditions. That the applicant provide the secretary treasurer with the deeds in triplicate for conveyance of the subject parcel. a registerable legal description of the subject parcel together with a copy of the deposited reference plan if applicable for the issuance of the certificate of consent. That the final certificate fee payable to the town of Grimsby be submitted to the secretary treasurer. that all conditions of consent be fulfilled within two years from the date of the notice of decision pursuant to subsection 5341 of the planning act failing which this consent shall be deemed to be refused. Development engineering has no objection to the requested um consent. [snorts] The NPCA has no objections. The subject plans are within an NPCA regulated valley system. No development permit is required from this office as no development is proposed. The Niagara region uh said the following. There is no record of the existing swage system on the subject lands that services the dwelling. They require the following condition that the owner shall submit a valid maintenance agreement in order for the existing sewage system on site to meet the Ontario building code requirements. [snorts] and the um NC has no objections. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the uh agent or applicant here? >> Yeah. Could you just come up to the uh lectern and state your name and address for the record and then just speak to the application, please? >> Uh good evening. Uh my name is Joel Swaggerman. Uh 55 Head Street in Hamilton. I'm with the Bruce Trail Conservancy and it's my great pleasure to be here today. Um I don't have too much to add to the staff report. It was very um very great um and is full of information. Um but what I wanted to do, if you'll humor me, is just zoom out a little bit and give a little bit of context to the Greater Bruce Trail um and what we're trying to do at the Bruce Trail Conservancy. So our mission is preserving a a ribbon of wilderness for everyone forever. And part of accomplishing that uh mission is our vision of a permanently protected conservation corridor along the Niger Scarment containing the Bruce Trail. Um [snorts] so if you don't know the Bruce Trail runs from Queenston to Toboamorei on the Bruce Peninsula. It's about 900 km long and um we've secured about 72% of the Bruce Trail optimum route. So that's the route of the trail that we ideally would like to see and it's along the Niger Scarman edge and although relatively small uh this subject properties u represents a a critical piece of the puzzle. Um it secures uh just over 70 m of the optimum route. Um, and all of these pieces are important uh for building that conservation corridor. It's a bit like building a a jigsaw puzzle. Um, so we're doing this piece by piece and um, we've we've actually been focusing a lot on Grimby over the last few years and we've uh, secured a handful of properties in this way and um, we've enjoyed the support of [snorts] uh, this committee as well as town staff and and the town's policies like the official plan and the recreational trails master plan. [snorts] Um, so we're grateful for that support and uh we also enjoy strong support from the community for the work that we're doing. Um, this is a public amenity for everyone uh to enjoy and to uh really appreciate what we have here in Grimby than the the Niagara Scarment. It's a it's a unique feature and it's one of a kind. Um so uh yeah so this this severance is just a practical way of securing uh that piece of nature that make sure it's protected forever and that everyone is able to enjoy it into the future. So thank you. I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? >> No, I see none. Does anybody in uh um [clears throat] that's here want to speak to the this application? No. Okay. Do we have a um a motion? Someone want to make a motion with the reasons? Yeah, go ahead, Adam. >> Yeah, thank you through Mr. Chair's moment here. Uh the motion would be resolved that consent application B0326 for 59 Park Road South for conservation lot to be severed and conveyed to Bruce Trail Conservation with approximately 1.3 hectares uh 3.788 acres to be preserved and protected as part of the Bruce Trail Conservation Corridor. Approximately 74 meters, the Bruce Trail optimum route crosses this part of the property, thereby securing safe public access to the Niger and protecting and enhancing habitat for species at risk. Lots to be retained by owner approximately 0.83 hectares, 2.05 acres developed by the house and with no change in use proposed as part of this application and that it be approved with the conditions as read out by the secretary treasurer. Thank you. [snorts] >> Thank you. Um, so we have a mover. Do we have a seconder on this? Fay. And we'll put this to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. I see no one opposed. So, that is carried. Uh, continue the great work. Thank you for what you're doing. We we appreciate it. Yeah. Uh, also note there's a 20-day appeal period on that. Uh our next uh application is going to be A0926 for 306 Main Street East. >> Thank you. >> So the purpose of this application is to legalize the wood acoustic privacy fence that has already been constructed by the homebuilder. The variances requested are to permit an existing fence with a setback of 0.51 m from the street line that is main street east whereas a minimum setback of 4 1/2 m is required and to permit an existing fence that is 2.07 m in height whereas a maximum fence height of 2 m is permitted. And this is an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. That is a picture of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and these are the agencies that have provided comments and I will summarize those comments for you. Planning staff have no objections to the minor variance proposed by the applicant. They have reviewed the application under section 45 of the planning act and are of the opinion that the minor variance meets the intent of the official plan and zoning by law is appropriate for the development of the lands and are minor in nature. Therefore, they recommend the application be approved. Development engineering has no objections. The region has no comments and the NPCA and NEC have no objections either. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the owner or their agent here this evening? >> No. Is anybody that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Uh, Eric, you have your hand up. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, so I'm Eric Husby. I'm at 304 Main Street East. Uh the fence in question uh goes along the side of my driveway. Um the purpose of my uh being here tonight was really just to raise a concern around safety. Uh specifically when uh when anybody pulls into my driveway and then tries to back out again, there's no line of sight until the very last second. Uh we have had two close calls with uh kids that are running ahead of parents uh that are out for a stroll. Um, you'll notice that uh if if anybody's come into the property, you'll see that my wife and I always back into the driveway now uh for safety. Um, if I have an Amazon delivery or Door Dash guy or contractor, you know, they pull straight in and then they back out again and and that's the concern. So, the fence itself I don't have a problem with. The height I don't really care about. Uh, my my point tonight is just around safety. Um, and I would invite invite anybody that's on the committee of adjustment. Uh feel free to I know I know uh the intent was to make a decision tonight, but if there's any concern, feel free to to maybe uh uh postpone this and and come and see for yourself. Uh it's it's a bit concerning. The the other kind of funny thing is that for some reason the the sidewalk jogs at the end of my driveway now. That was a change with the new property um when the when the development was put in. So it makes it that much more difficult to see when people are coming. So, if there's somebody walking a dog or somebody a little kid on a bike that's coming too fast, you literally don't see them until you're on top of them. Uh, for myself, you know, my vehicle has a backup sensor, proximity sensor, and alarms that'll let me know. But I know people in older vehicles that don't have those uh amenities. Um, it's a concern. So, my point here tonight is just to raise any um people's uh attention to a safety issue. Um, now if again if the if the fence is going to stay, that's fine. U but I just want to raise my my concern around safety. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you for your concerns and uh and for speaking. Um I want to just go back then to see is is the owner here or their agent. Uh they're not present this evening. Okay. Adam, you've got your hand up. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, given that the the agent or applicant isn't here, um, I actually had a question. I just wondering how this happened. I mean, usually homebuilders are pretty precise and locating things like fences and lots. So, um, unfortunately, I can't ask that question. And I actually do live, uh, in that same development just up the road. And I do see the delegates point. So, um, if it's okay with the committee, I'd like to put a motion for deferral until the next meeting. >> Any further questions from the committee or comments? >> Yeah, go ahead, Fay. >> Um, yes, through the chair. Um, I see Adam's points and I agree. Let's defer this. The owner, property owner isn't here. I had a site visit there today. I noticed the closeness of the cars in that driveway. Let's just have a second look at it. I agree. We should do a deferral. So, if Adam wants to make that motion, I agree with him. >> Okay, Adam, you want to make a motion? >> Yes. Uh deferral to the uh next meeting, I guess, would be uh first available today. >> Okay. A motion that we defer it to uh a future meeting or the next meeting. You want >> Yeah, I put a future meeting. Thank you. >> A future meeting. Okay. Um Okay. So, there's a motion uh that we defer to a future meeting. Uh do I have a seconder on that? Okay. Okay. And let's vote on that. All in favor of the deferral, raise your hand. I see no one opposed. So, that is carried. This application will be deferred until next uh next month. Next application we have is for A12-26 for 50 Whitaker Avenue. I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the purpose of this application is to convert the existing detached garage to an additional dwelling unit and to widen the driveway. The variances requested are to permit a driveway width of 8.53 m at the street line whereas a maximum driveway width of 6 m is permitted [gasps] to permit a driveway width of 8.53 m at the street line. Um whereas a drive maximum driveway width of 6 m is permitted and to permit eaves and gutters to project. 28 m into the required rear yard whereas a maximum projection of 0.25 m is permitted and um this is an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. [clears throat and cough] This is um an aerial view of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and these are the agencies that have provided commence which I will summarize now. Planning staff recommend that uh minor variance application A1226 for 50 WA Avenue be approved as the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature appropriate for the development or use of the land, building or structure and are considered to maintain the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and the official plan pursuant under subsection 451 of the planning act. Development engineering staff have the following comment. Prior to undertaking any entrance works within the municipal right away, the proposed entrance modification will require an entrance permit from the town town's public works department. The maximum permitted driveway width within the municipal right of way is 6 m. [snorts] The um NPCA, NEC, or the Niagara region have no comments or objections. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Uh, I take it you're the owner or their agent. >> Agent. Okay, great. Um, if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record, please. >> Glenn Kerno of St. Catherine's. And, uh, Yep. The widing is just because of the extra ADUs going and parking required. It's minor in nature. It's pretty self-explanatory on this. >> Yeah. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? I see none. Is anybody in the public would like to speak? Okay. Um, I'll ask you if you want to Do we have another mic on that side? >> Uh, I don't see one there. >> No. Okay. So, I'll have I'll have you switch spots if you want to come up and uh >> you can sit down there. We'll juggle around a little bit. >> If you could state your name and address for the record and then um we'll hear your comments. >> Hi, I'm Aante Hurstik. Uh, I live on 48 Whitaker right next door to this. Um, I'm a resident of Grimby for 53 years. lived in the same neighborhood for 53 years. Uh I am kind of speaking on behalf of a couple people here in in the neighborhood. Uh we are absolutely opposed to this. Uh it is uh historically a quiet neighborhood and uh the density of the neighborhood is very peaceful. We've got uh a lot of privacy. It's a very familyoriented neighborhood. It's not a very minor change to the driveway. Everybody has either single car driveways or maybe a double car driveway. This will be a triple car driveway that you're going to be putting in there. Um, by doing so, there's a lot of safety concerns that we have. Um, so I just went I have a petition here to oppose I've got 30 names the entire street of Whitaker all the way up to the stop sign. And if you bring up the map, I have everybody on Lake Shore there or Lakeside that's opposed to this as well. Um, a lot of the newer families in the neighborhood on Old Orchard as well, I've spoken to them as well as Fair View are opposed to this because if this is the standard, it could also happen in their neighborhoods as well. Um, we're also wondering how is this going to affect traffic in our neighborhood? You're you're bringing three new families into this uh into this area. Um, is there going to be enough uh parking? Currently, there's not enough parking. We don't park on our street just because the way we are, we're an older neighborhood. We don't have any sidewalks in that. You can't park two across from each other. So, that's a big concern of ours. Um, what else did I make some other notes as far as like noise and other disturbances that may happen in the in the neighborhood by adding three different people or three different families into one dwelling? If you look at it's a single dwelling now. I know there are bigger lots in the area, but you're going to put three families into one smaller lot, and we we think this might be a concern for the neighborhood. So, I've got some other members of the uh neighborhood here um that voice the same concerns. I'm not sure if they want to speak to anything, but um those were some of our major concerns there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, now is there anyone else would like to come up and make some comments as well >> or or have the comments been covered? >> Yeah, it's kind of the same thing like the character of this neighborhood. I mean, if you've lived in Grimsby for years, um, it's uh it's got that quiet character, especially in the older neighborhood that we're in right now. And a lot of people, it's very soughta. I've lived on on this street here for 30 years. I grew up on the street next to it. Um, if you look at there's no comparables really on Whitaker Avenue because people have lived there for 40 years. You've handed it down to your aunt, your went down to your niece, your nephews, whatever. It stayed within the community. Um, so it was it wasn't really hard for me to get 30 names. If uh if I need to get more, like I said, I just spoke to the odd person on uh Old Orchard. I mean, I went as far as Elizabeth and they said if bring a petition, they're not uh agreeing with this. So, all right. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, just before you sit down, um, was did Fay, did you have a question? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yes. Um, through the chair, I have a question. Not so much to this homeowner, but to the original um, representative that was just here, Mr. Ranken, I believe. >> Oh, okay. I had a question for you, sir. Um when I was out there now there's going to be a unit in the basement and then the garage is being converted. >> Yes. >> Do you have any elevations? What's that? The garage is front and center on that neighborhood. Um I never received an elevation. I'm I'm curious to see what your plan is for that garage. >> Yeah, it's just a it's going to be a one-bedroom accessory dwelling area. Is it going to look the same with the door like the garage door or is it being >> No, the garage doors will be removed and it'll have a window at the front and a man door on the leftand side towards the existing house. Um, as of right the ADUs are allowed. We're actually here just speaking about the parking I thought um because the Ontario government put it forward that these are allowed. This is the int gentle intensification that they want to go through. >> That's correct. Um I'm just curious because one of the tests is that this needs to fit into the the whole streetscape. So I'm just curious what that's going to look like. >> Yeah. So the the garage was being kept basically besides the garage doors, they have to be taken off because they won't meet uh insulation values for what's required. >> If we left the garage doors on, we'd have to false panel a wall behind it to meet building code for insulation. So they get closed in. Windows get put out in the front then for glazing. So, the front is going to look like a little home. >> Yeah. >> Little house. Okay. The driveway is I'm I'm imperial. I'm sorry. I'm not metric. Driveway is going to be 30 ft wide approximately. >> I had an Imperial and I had to switch to Mechuk and I forget what the number is to be honest with you. [laughter] >> Kevin, can you do that conversion? I think I did the conversion. It's about 27. >> It should be We We try for nine spots wide for each thing. So, 27 ft would be about right. >> Okay. because that that's a standard parking width in Imperial. >> Okay. Um that answers most of my questions. Thank you. >> All right. >> Are there any other questions from the committee? >> Oh, you have a question? Sure. Yeah. Come on up. >> Yep. >> Just wait till you're on the microphone. Thank you. >> Um and if they do go ahead with this, I just want to know what how it's going to affect our infrastructure. I know if everybody's been uh with all these heavy rainfalls and that we run on like a culvert system and that uh will the drains be able to hold up with another family being in there like how is it going to affect our infrastructure in the in the neighborhood as well? So that's just another question we had. >> Okay, thanks. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Any other comments? Oh yeah, go ahead. Just to answer to that is that the building code makes them upgrade their water lines to make sure the drains and everything are adequate to to handle the loads of extra water flow that's happening because there's more units within the dwelling. >> Thank you. Anything else from the committee? >> Um you have something Kevin? >> No. >> Okay. Um yeah, so I agree with um what the agent was saying that the provincial government has passed legislation that as of right any property can have three units on that property. Uh is that correct, Walter? Am I getting that right? Yeah. Uh and so one can be an ARU that's outside of the immediate home and then the home can be split into two. Am I right on that? Yeah. So that's not even up for debate. The government has passed that and and we are ruled as a committee by the provincial policy that has come down from the province. Uh so when we look at this, we do have to keep focused on the the variances we're looking at which are the driveway and the uh the encroachment of the eaves into the sideyard. Um, so I just want to remind that to the committee that that's what we have to kind of keep focused on in this. Uh, and in saying that, do we do [clears throat] we have any more comments or does someone want to make a motion to for this application? Adam, go ahead. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, just a comment was um that one of the public delegates brought up the mention about traffic and actually this variance and passing it would actually help the traffic because if we don't approve the parking um then I just imagine this parking will end up on the street. So >> yeah. Yeah. to that point. Um if I could ask uh uh staff, what what is the requirements for parking for the the um the three units on a lot? >> Yeah, thank you through you, Chair. The zoning bylaw currently requires a minimum of two parking spaces for the principal residential unit on the property and every accessory residential unit above and beyond that requires an additional parking space. So, uh, for three units, uh, the requirement would be a minimum of five spaces. Two, no, four spaces. I'm sorry, my math is terrible. Um, yeah, four spaces. Two for the principal residents and one for each of the arus. >> Okay. And then to the agent, um, your plan then, um, is four sidebyside, uh, parking spaces. Is that correct? >> No. No, it's three units side by side and the last unit is tandem end to end. That way really they only want three spots, but the the planning department wants the fourth. So that's why the one's tandem that goes up between the the two buildings, >> right? Okay. Okay. Back to the committee. Have to think about this one. Adam, go ahead. >> Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll give you a motion resolve that minor variance application A1226 for 50 Whitaker Avenue to permit a driveway width of 8.53 m at the street line. Whereas, uh, sorry, my screen switch here. Whereas a maximum driveway width of 6.0 0 m is permitted according to section 4.31A in zoning bylaw 1445 as amended to permit a driveway width of 8.53 m whereas a maximum driveway width of 6.0 m is permitted where no garage is provided according to section 4.31F in zoning bylaw 1445 as amended to ease and gutters project 0.28 m is required rear yard whereas a maximum projection of 0.25 25 m is permitted according to section 4.18D in zoning bylaw 1445 as amended be approved the reasons that it meets the intent of the official plan was in the planning report. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this motion? >> I will. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I um I hear the concerns of the neighbors. Um we've had these come before us in the past. Um, they're not great. I mean, the province kind of forced this density push into existing residential neighborhoods. I have one across the road, although they didn't get a variance. They didn't require one. They just put a basement apartment in. They didn't change the driveway. So, we get street parking. It's probably worse than this case where they're trying to accommodate all the parking on site through tandem and side by side. So, um, yeah, I I don't feel comfortable in it, but I do support the premise of trying to increase some density on existing inexisting property owners. We've had them before. I forget the street and we had an entire neighborhood out. I happened to talk to the owners ne next door a year later, like just last week, we happened to bring it up for whatever reason, and they said, you know, it's not that bad after all. It just seems bad when you look at it on a drawing, but people are getting used to it. So, I think this is a good compromise. Um, he is accommodating the parking on the property. It's only widening slightly at the street. I can't see traffic being an issue with two additional units uh being introduced here through this. So, I am in favor for uh the reasons mentioned in the planning report and concur to to uh to Adam's point. And I'll be prepared to second the motion then. [snorts] >> Okay. Uh you wanted to make a comment. I'll I'll allow one more comment. Yep. >> So, I've I've got a question. If it's going to accommodate just the residents that are living there, what about visitors? I mean, you're having people come over. Where are they going to park? That's a corner lot on Lakeside and on Whitaker. >> Um, [snorts] again, yeah, we we hear your concern, but the province has tied our hands, >> and that that becomes a safety concern. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I agree. Um but with the province saying that you know as Walter laid out two units two parking spaces for the main uh um house or or dwelling and then one additional beyond that. Um another uh like where where I find it difficult which we're avoiding right now is the two ADU uh or additional unit spaces don't have to be side by side. they can be tandem which I can't get my head wrapped around that where you're going to rent say your kids want to live there and now they have to call the other renter say can you move your car cuz I got to go um that that becomes very difficult so I do appreciate when we look at the width that you're allowing that they're there they're single spaces that the renters can get in and out uh so yeah we we have this motion on the table it's been seconded by Kevin so let's put this to a vote all in favor raise your hand. Any opposed? I see one. It is carried, but please note that there is a 20-day appeal period for this. Thank you. We're going to go to the next uh application [snorts] uh and it's for A1326 for 28 St. Andrews Avenue. I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> Entire street. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> A326 for 28 St. Andrews Avenue. The purpose of this application is to build a covered front porch and a two-story rear deck. The variances requested to permit a porch to encroach 1.87 m into the minimum front yard whereas a maximum encroachment of 1 and 1/2 m is permitted to permit an unenclosed canopy to encroach 7 m and a rear deck to encroach 4 m into the southerntherly required sideyard. [gasps] Whereas these encroachments are only permitted into the required front, rear and exterior sideyards and [clears throat] uh to permit a canopy that is a carport to encroach 1.72 m into the required sideyard of 1.8 m whereas such encroachments are only permitted into the required front, rear and exterior sideyards. This is an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. This is an aerial view of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and these are the agencies that have provided comments and I will summarize those comments. Planning staff recommend the approval of minor variance application A1326 subject to conditions as the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature appropriate for the development or use of the land, building or structure and are considered to maintain the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and the official plan pursuant to subsection 451 of the planning act. Heritage Planning staff recommend that the following conditions be added as a condition of approval. that the applicant owner submit the completed stage one archaeological assessment and subsequent studies if applicable as well as a letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism confirming that all the submitted archaeological assessments stage one and stages 2 to four if applicable have been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports as a condition of licensing in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act as required. If the ministry requires further archaeological work to be completed prior to acknowledging the report, the report must also be submitted to and acknowledged by the ministry to the satisfaction of the town of Grimby prior to clearance of this condition. No demolition, grading, or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the issuance of a letter from MCM through town of Brimby confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met licensing and resource conservation requirements. Condition number two, that the owner be informed of the following advisory clause. If deeply buried or previously undiscovered archaeological remains or resources are found during development activities on the subject lands, all activities must stop immediately. If the discovery is human remains, contact the Niagara Regional Police Service and Corona to secure the site. If the discovery is not human remains, the area must be secured to prevent site disturbance. The project proponent must then be then followed the steps outlined in the Niagara region archaeological management plan appendix A. Development engineering has reviewed the application and has no commence or objections to the proposed minor variance. No NPCA regulated features currently exist at this address. The NPCA offers no objections to development. As a result, the region has no commence. Niagara Escarment Commission has the following commence. The subject property is designated as urban area by the 2017 Niagara Escarment Plan. The policies in parts 1.7 and two of the Niagara Escarment Plan apply. NEC staff understand the proposal to facilitate the construction of front yard and rear yard decks. NEC staff do not anticipate any policy conflicts with parts 1.7 or two of the NEP and offer [clears throat] no objections. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the owner or their agent here this evening? >> Uh yes, I am. >> Great. Um could you just state your name and address for the record? Yeah. So, my name is Christina Hudson. I'm representing the homeowners of 28 St. Andrews A. Uh I'm at 24 Elm Street in Grimby. Um the purpose for our application is to permit a covered front porch and carport as well as the twotory rear deck. As mentioned, um we're asking for relief for the minimum front yard and sideyard setbacks. We're hoping to improve the usability of the property and the overall imp appearance of the home. Uh we do feel that the design suits the existing streetscape and surrounding residences. Um we do have a concern about the condition for the archaeological assessment stage one. Um because of the size of the property, it's to my understanding that the test pits would then have to cover the entire property rather than just the area that we're working in. Um because of the existing site features such as the inground swimming pool, the pool patio, detached garage, gardens, etc. Um the actual available area to dig is limited. Um in addition to those features, the property did have a rear twostory addition with a basement and walkout stairs constructed in 2019. Um, so as noted on the site plan, there is the rear deck we'd like to remove. Um, while it's unclear of its foundation, we are confident that a large portion of the earth below has been disrupted already, um, due to the overdig that would have been required for the twotory addition that was done. Um, so with all this being said, we are requesting the removal of the archaeological assessment condition. Uh myself and the homeowners are aware of the clause and we will follow the required steps should anything arise during construction. Uh thank you. >> Thank you. Uh is there anyone in before I go to the committee um in uh the room right now that would like to speak to this application in favor or opposed? I see none. Okay. Then uh I'll bring it to the committee. Is there any questions from the committee or do we want to make any comments on the removal of the condition one? >> Yeah, go ahead Fay >> through uh your chair. I agree with the presenter. Um I could live with removing that um the stage one archaeological assessment. I think when I did the site visit um the land's already been in use for a long long time. It's an old street. We've been over this before many times. That land has probably been unearthed and turned over many times. I don't I feel very confident that we could lose that clause and saved the homeowner some u money and some grief with that. I think going I I'm ready to support this right now. I think it's a a fair um they've given us a lot of information. They've done a lot of work on this and uh I agree with the planning department. It's met all the tests. >> Okay. Um so is that a have you moved made a motion there or >> I can make a motion. >> Okay. Go for it. >> We can just move ahead. Thank you. So let it be resolved that minor variance application A13-26 for 28 St. Andrews Avenue to permit a porch to encroach 1.87 m into the minimum front yard. Whereas a maximum encroachment of 1.5 meters is permitted according to section 4.9 in zoning bylaw 1445 as amended to permit an un enclosed canopy to encroach 7 m and a rear deck to encroach 4 m into the southerntherly required sideyard. Whereas these encroachments are only permitted into the required front, rear, and exterior sideyards according to section 4.9. In zoning bylaw 14-45 is amended to permit a canopy carport to encroach 1.72 m into the required sideyard of 1.8 m. Whereas such encroachments are only permitted into the required front, rear, and exterior sideyards according to section 4.9 zoning bylaw 14-45 be approved without conditions. >> Yeah, we're going to remove the first one, leave the second condition on. >> Uh, correct. Sorry. Leave um the second condition and remove the first condition and so be approved with condition. >> Okay. Approved. Yep. Uh with condition two. Any further discussion on that? Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I would concur with FA on this one. We've done this in the past. It wouldn't be appropriate to leave that condition in. In our opinion, after seeing the site, I would concur with the with the property owner and the disturbances that have already taken place. It's a slab on grade deck proposed at the back. It's pillars. I'm assuming uh just post being drilled at the front. Um so I would certainly uh concur with that motion and I'll second it. Okay. Uh so it's been uh uh moved and seconded. So let's put it to a vote. All in favor raise your hand. I see no one opposed. So that is carried. And please note there is the 20-day appeal period before that becomes legal. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh the next application we have is A1526 for 6 Morrison Crescent. I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of this application is to remove the existing rear yard deck and construct a new multi-level deck system. The variances requested are to permit a rare deck encroachment of 5.8 8 m. Whereas a rear yard deck encroachment of 2.5 m into the required rear yard is permitted. And to permit a rare yard unenclosed covered porch encroachment of 5.8 m, whereas a rear yard unencclosed covered porch encroachment of 1 and 1/2 m into the required rare yard is permitted. This is um an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice. This is an aerial um view of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and uh this is what is proposed for the multi-level deck. And these are the agencies that have provided commence which I will summarize now. Planning staff recommend approval of minor variance application A15-26 as the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature appropriate for the development or use of the land, building or structure and are considered to maintain the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and the official plan pursuant to subsection 451 of the planning act. Development engineering has no objections. They have advised that the proposed deck and any associated structures or grading must not obstruct or impede the established drainage route along the rail lot line or or access to the catch basin at the southeast corner of the lot. The region NEC and NPCA have no commence. Yes. And uh that's it. Over to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the uh agent or applicant here? Yeah. If you just come up and uh state your name and address for the record and you can speak to the application, please. >> Barlo. Uh I live at 9 Sunny Lee Crescent in Grimby. And basically there is an existing deck there. Pretty much we're only going to raise it maybe I think 6 in to be flush with the door. and uh have two levels. Um and I think the only reason why for the minor variance is because we're going to be up 2 feet um in height. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Um so the footprint is relatively the same. >> Pretty pretty darn close to the same. Yeah. Almost the whole backyard is a deck right now. >> Y >> So, and there's all flower boxes and gardens, which we're going to take the flower boxes out um and have a little more space in the back. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, any questions from the committee right now? Anybody in the public want to uh comment pro or against? >> No. >> Just a quick question. Go ahead. The the cedar hedge was that removed for construction or did I miss that? >> I don't know. Somebody they removed and behind the fence. >> Yeah. >> I we don't know why it was removed. >> Okay. I just thought Oh, they've already started. >> Yeah, just that that section. >> Yeah. Yeah. It actually deteriorated the fence. Now we got to fix the fence. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh do we have a motion from the committee then? >> Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks, Kevin. Okay. [snorts] I'm prepared to make the motion resolve that minor variance application A1526 for six Morris and Crescent to permit a rear yard deck encroachment of 5.8 8 m whereas a rear deck encroachment of 2.5 m into the required rear yard is permitted according to section 4.9 C and zoning BA 1445 is amended and to permit a rear yard uh enclosed covered porch encroachment of 5.8 m whereas a rear yard enclosed covered porch encroachment of 1.5 m into the required rear yard is permitted according to section 49C in zoning bylaw 1445 is amended. The reasons being its minor nature meets the intent of the official plan and zoning by line is appropriate for the development use of the property and hearing the uh verbal evidence and the planning reports and other comments received. I'm prepared to make that motion uh that it be approved without conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion on that? No. Do I have a seconder, Adam? Thank you. And we'll put this to a vote. All in favor raise your hand or say I. I see no one opposed. So that's carried. Uh just note that there is a 20-day appeal period before that becomes legal. The next application we have is for A1626 for two Balmoro Balmoral Avenue. Over to the secretary treasurer. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of this application is to construct a new one-story single detached dwelling and the variance requested is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 32% whereas a maximum lot coverage of 28.7% is permitted. This is um an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. This is an aerial view of the neighborhood for context. The current conditions on site are pictured over here. This is um what is proposed for the site and these are the agencies that have commented on the application. Uh planning staff recommend approval of minor variance application A1626 subject to the following condition as the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature appropriate for the development or use of the land building or structure and are considered to maintain the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and the official plan pursuant to section 451 of the planning act. The condition is that the applicant submit an address change fee to have the subject lands reressed to a Roslin Avenue address due to the proposed location of the front door. Development engineering has no objections. [snorts] It appears that existing sanitary and water servicing may be available from Balmoral Drive. These [snorts] services may be suitable for reuse as part of the proposed development subject to confirmation of their condition and suitability by town staff through the servicing permit process. The applicant should be aware that servicing and entrance permits through the town public works department may be applicable to the proposed development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The region NEC and NPCA have no comments. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the applicant or their agent here this evening? Yeah, [snorts] >> you can both come. Yeah. >> If you could just state your name and address for the record, that'd be appreciated. >> Yes. Um, uh, Vince Antonucci, Grimby, 349 Grimby, uh, Maple A. Uh would you like to add anything to the correspondence that we heard? >> Nope. >> No, I'm satisfied. >> Okay. Um then I'm going to start with a question. Uh and this is to staff. I'm looking at uh a notice of hearing um for A0322. So back in 2022, same address was requesting 33% lock coverage and today they're asking for 32% lock coverage. Um, so did because a house wasn't built, did the 30, if this was approved, was the 33% no longer uh permitted >> the >> Oh. Oh, go ahead. >> Was for a different proposal for a twotory? Uh, we're we're changing it to a uh a bungalow just for elderly purposes, too. >> But I understand his question. He's saying that we're approved to 33, so why are we not? >> Yeah. Walter, can you answer? Is it because it's a new application like with a new proposed dwelling? Is that why that changed? >> Yeah, thank you. Three, chair. I I don't recall the details of that particular application whether or not the 33 was approved. Um there it it came to the committee several times back at uh back in the day. So I don't recall uh specifically what was approved and what wasn't approved, but uh it's my understanding we we need the 32%. No. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, this was before my time with committee, so I don't know if it was approved or not. Yes, sir. It was actually a bigger home that we were >> I've decided to build a a smaller smaller bungalow due to age and >> during whatever much younger at the time when I was uh >> Okay. Adam, were you able to hear that? >> Yeah. And can you just state your name and address for the record as well? >> Luke Gagglardo. I live at in Winona right now, but I will be hopefully within the next year living in Grimby. >> Okay. Are you going to be the the owner of the home when it's >> My wife's name is on the application, but yes, I will be living in that home. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. [snorts] Okay. Um, any other questions from the committee? [snorts] >> No. Okay. Anybody in the public like to speak to this? No. I see none. Okay. Do we have a >> Sorry. >> Oh, go ahead, F. >> Through your chair. Gentlemen, I just have one question. >> Um, I like the plan. I think it fits the whole area. All those little bungalows around you looks great. I'm just wondering what about that big tree that's right there at the corner. >> I asked about that when I originally bought the property. I had asked because it's on city property. I'd asked to demo to get rid of the tree cuz it's very old and it's pretty unsafe. >> Um and the town refused. That was six years ago. I would love to have that tree removed. Can you just remove it or do you have >> I would I would even take the you know it's on city property. City should remove it but if I had to do it I would do it. >> That was the only thing I thought that was wrong with the plan. Yeah. It's kind of hanging over the wires. >> I love I love trees. [laughter] I would I would plant a new tree there if they would allow me to. But that tree I think is unsafe and old. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I agree. >> Very old. >> Um I can support this application. I can >> the tree. The tree. The tree can go. The house can stay. It's lovely. You and your wife permission over that. >> Yeah. We don't control trees here. >> Unfortunately, sometimes it'd be nice to keep some trees. >> I love I love the trees, but that that is a I I will plant three trees to replace that. >> Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Uh, okay. Do we have someone that wants to read the motion then? >> FY, go ahead. >> I can make a motion on this. I can accept this. Um, let's see. Let it be resolved that minor variance application 816-26 for two Belmoral Avenue to permit a maximum lock coverage of 32% whereas a maximum lock coverage of 28.7% is permitted according to section 7.2.1 2.1 table 11 of the schedule 12A in zoning bylaw 1445 as amended as varied by previous minor variance application A03-22 be approved um with a condition that the applicant submit an address change fee to have the subject lands readressed to the Rosland Avenue address due to the proposed location of the front door. it meets [snorts] all the four tests, it's going to be acceptable into that neighborhood and going to look great. So, I totally stand behind this project. >> Okay. Thank you. Do I have a seconder on that, Kevin? Thank you. >> The address change application we do here >> Oh, sorry. I just got to put your mic on. Go ahead. >> The address change we will we will do here at the town somewhere. >> Uh Walter, would you be able to speak to that? >> Yeah. Thank you. It'll be done through the building permit process. >> Fantastic. Thank you all. >> Yeah. Excellent. Okay. So, we have uh uh is there any uh further discussion on the motion? Adam? No. Uh okay. Let's put it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. I see no one opposed. So, that is carried. And there's a 20-day appeal period before it becomes binding. >> Thank you. Yeah. Uh, Kevin. >> Uh, bring that up. >> Okay. Okay, the next application we have or the last one we have is A1426 for 214 Main Street East and I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer to read the correspondence. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. [snorts] So, the purpose of this application is to legalize the pool enclosure and tool shed as well as to build an detached garage. The variances requested are to permit a maximum lot coverage of 25% whereas a maximum lot coverage of 15% is permitted to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard with a setback of 23.8 m from the front lot line. Whereas in no case shall an accessory building be located closer to the street than the front wall of the dwelling. To permit an accessory building to be 0.0 0 m from the rare lot line. Whereas an accessory building is required to be a minimum of 1.3 m from the rear lot line. And to permit an accessory building to be located 0.0 m from the side lot line whereas an accessory building is required to be a minimum of 6 m from the side lot line. This is um an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice. an aerial view of the neighborhood for context and this is u these are the current conditions on site and [snorts] these are the agencies that have provided comments and I will summarize those comments for you now planning staff recommend approval of minor variance application A1426 with the recommended conditions as the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature appropriate for the development or use of the land, building or structure and considered to maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw and the official plan pursuant to subsection 451 of the planning act. Heritage planning um staff had this to say. In summary, heritage staff have reviewed minor variance application A1426 for the property at 214 Main Street East and its relationship to the um adjacent protected heritage property at 212 Main Street East. Staff have provided recommended conditions to appropriately manage potential impacts on the adjacent protected heritage property. These are the conditions attached uh to the heritage uh staff uh that the garage be located within the area highlighted in yellow within figure one of the August 18th, 2026 heritage staff memorandum as shown. that the garage be permitted outside of the area highlighted in yellow within figure 1 of the August 18, 2026 heritage staff memorandum, provided the site has been fully evaluated through a heritage impact assessment prepared by a qualified heritage professional and any identified impacts can be appropriately mitigated. That should recommendations be made in the heritage impact assessment, they be required to be implemented into the final design. that the final design, colors, and materials be approved by heritage staff at the building permit stage to ensure the new structure is constructed in accordance with heritage conservation best practices. [snorts] This includes ensuring that the new structure is compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to the heritage building at 212 Main Street East. that if the garage is not constructed using slabon grade construction, vibration monitoring devices be installed on the subject property at 214 Main Street East for the full duration of construction to ensure the development does not result in adverse impacts to the protected heritage structure at 212 Main Street East. that the vibration monitoring company provide heritage staff at the building permit stage with a monitoring and communication strategy outlining the process to be followed should unsafe vibration levels be reached. And finally, that the town of Gimsby's crack monitoring devices be offered to the adjacent protected heritage property prior to the commencement of construction. Building services has no comments respecting the requested planning relief. [snorts] Given the nature of the construction, including the incorporation of an outdoor of an indoor swimming pool, the subsequent building permit review may require the involvement of qualified design professionals, including professional engineering and architectural services together with detailed drawings and supporting documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Ontario building code. Indo poolool assemblies present specialized structural mechanical ventilation moisture management and life safety considerations that will be evaluated through the building permit review process. It has also been identified through the minor variance application that an additional detached accessory structure exists on the property. The construction history and permit status of this structure will need to be confirmed through the building permit review process. Depending on the location, construction and proximity to property lines, applicable Ontario building code requirements related to spatial separation, limiting distance, exterior wall construction and fire protection may apply. Development engineering staff have reviewed the application and have no commence objections to the proposed minor variance. The region has no comments. NPCA have no objections. The Niagara Escarment Commission have the following to say. The subject property is designed as urban area by the 2017 Niagara Escarment Plan. The policies in parts 1.7 and two of the Niagara Escarment Plan apply. NEC staff understand the proposal is to facilitate the construction of two accessory buildings, a pool enclosure and detached garage. As flow plans have not been provided, NEC staff cautioned that detached secondary dwelling units are not permitted in the Niagara escapment plan area. [gasps] Provided the accessory structures will not be utilized as or contain a secondary dwelling unit, NEC staff do not anticipate any policy conflicts with parts 1.7 or two of the NEP and offer no objections. In addition, two neighboring residents have sent in correspondents to be read out at the meeting as they are unable to attend and I will read those to you now. So the first one is um it says we are a neighbor of 214 Main Street East. Um, I repeatedly see the derelic tool shed at the rear of 214 Main Street East and wonder why an insurance broker would keep such a building in disrepair. It should be ordered torn down a town or an inspection of condition compliance should be considered. The garage to be built would protrude from the line if houses on Main Street East, which even the new houses being built have to align with. The pool [snorts] house enclosure would add yet another outbuilding to the lot, bringing up the question of how many is too many. Why are all these buildings allowed to be on the lot line when all other owner's houses require setbacks? Why is this owner allowed a front yard in a wild [clears throat] mess state? I feel all aspects of this application should be denied. And this is from Bruce Meadows who says he's a neighbor. Um, and the next one is from um Jeff Zondag of 221 Main Street East. I have a few concerns with the proposed changes to Mr. Hussein's minor variance application A1426. I do not consider building extension 35 ft close to Main Street a minor variance. The [snorts] mature trees in the front yard of 214 Main Street East would have to be removed, taken away from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The look of a garage 35 ft more pr more proud of the home where most of if not all homes have accessory buildings in line with the front of the home as per the current zoning bylaw. This two takes away from the aesthetics on Main Street. According to present neighbors, this property is not well-maintained with many unfinished projects, which again takes away from the look of the neighborhood. Also, I find that an application such as this that can have a visual impact on our neighborhood sent during prime summer vacation months very troubling. [snorts] This does not give those who have concerns when away time to make a proper appeal. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the owner or their applicant uh or or agent here? Um, yep. If you could just come up to the lectern and state your name and address for the record, please. [clears throat] >> Uh, good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Ahar Rousan. I'm the owner along with my wife. She's over there. >> Mhm. [clears throat] Uh, would you like to speak to the uh um any anything on the application? Um, or would you like the committee to deliberate and have some questions for you? Uh, no. You guys go ahead. Ask the question. >> Nothing. Okay. Uh, before I go to the public committee, do we have any questions? >> Okay. You [clears throat] can wait. Um, all right. Is there anyone in the uh um here tonight that would like to speak to this application? Yep. Okay. Come on up to the lectern. Um, Mr. Hussein, if you want to take a or seat beside Walter, that works. And if you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Sure. Henry Vander Hayden, 212 Main Street East. Henry. >> Okay. Go ahead. If you have any concerns or uh or if you're in support, you can speak that now. >> Sure. I guess my first uh concern would be the two two car garage that's going to be in the front area, which I've tried to do that before and failed a minor variance. And now this fellow is asking for that uh permission. And I I deny that because it'll take totally away the looks of my property as well as his. Secondly, the pool enclosure that they're asking to be clarified. I guess is there's no finish on the outside. There was never a plan submitted. There was just built with no ask of the building committee. the the exterior building at the back which I agree has been there since I purchased the property but it's still on my lot line and the roof overhangs my property line and I would ask that to be moved back to the 6 minimum requirement. >> Okay, thank you. Um any questions from the committee right now? >> Yeah, go ahead. Uh >> through your chair. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. N would you like to speak to the uh um applicant or to >> uh the applicant probably but um do we know when these structures were constructed at the back the the pool enclosure and the >> Mr. Verhay Hayden if I can get you to sit down for and then we'll have Mr. Hussein answer these. Thank you. >> Um just seeing the pictures there the the the structures there that are kind of unfinished. Um they were built right to the lot line um overhang the neighbors property uh into the neighbor's property. So, do you know when they were construct? Did you construct them or >> you're talking about the tool shed? Yeah, >> the tool shed was built with the house I think around 1987 or something and because it has the same material, it has the same age and we when we bought it, it was there and uh when I was talking to the building uh about this pool enclosure, we talk about the tool shed and uh because since the city don't have any details even even the uh if you look at the covered area is already more than 15%, it's around 19%. So I asked them there must be a variance because builder build 19% they must go for the variance. So there is no documentation. So that's fine. So they said this is grandfather to you because you bought it and it's also we did not talk about the tool shed. I only build the pool enclosure and and why there is no uh when I build the basement finish we go for the first approval we submit everything then we build it. But in this case we already had a pergola. pergola was bigger than the size of that one and what we did it was very old and it was cracking and breaking down. So we removed that pergola and we just uh uh add the roof and then we said okay you know what when you put pool uh we we have a raccoon problem and we have uh couple of more wild animals there. So uh we thought it's going to be scratched and ripped off. So we thought okay we build a wall so that it will be safe. That's how it build and then uh we we just didn't get an idea that we just tore down the same size of forgula and we build up. So that's why there is no we did not submit anything. So the tool shed is old. It was built along with the house. >> Thank you. Any further questions from the committee? Well, I'm I'm just curious for staff because normally when we see requests in reduction in sideyards of accessory building, we get this long, you know, report or analysis about, you know, there's got to be some distance in there to allow for maintenance and drainage, etc., etc. This seems to be lacking in this report. And then to Mr. Vanderhid's uh concerns, it's actually hanging over onto his property. So, I have difficulty in supporting a reduction down to zero when we have this. Uh, I know it's not your fault, but now that we're we have a chance to recognize it, I have a problem supporting that recognition, I'm sorry. I would I would agree with your valid concerns about that encroachment and the lack of maintenance and being able to get at that to do anything to it to fix it up. Uh, seeing some of the pictures and looking at the street view, too, I've only saw it from the street at the front, but uh, I've got some concerns with that. Um the garage in the front, looking at it, how far back it already is. It's already 78 ft back or they're proposing to bring it um to 78 ft from the street. I think it's deep enough. I don't recall your application or what happened there. I've been on the committee for 20 years. I don't remember it, but maybe it's before that where you tried. Um I don't have as much a concern about that request than I do with the zero lot line reduction at the back. So those are just my comments, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> For that tool shed, uh it was a one lot. Uh his house and our house was the one lot and most probably it was it it was built by the same builder who split the uh house and that tool shed was there. So when they make the line, it just hang over. So instead of they move it or they resubmit, change the line or anything, they just build it. So that was that was the error of the builder because the tool shed was there when the lot was created and they just they just build a a separation wall and obvious that's why it's hangover otherwise it doesn't make sense it's half is hangover half is set back and I have no idea why they build like that in a in a little like at the beginning it has 19 in apart and no hangover to the wall and the back side I would say 8 ft is hang over like three three like only the foch foch is hanging over I don't know I cannot see it he can see it and for his garage they don't have enough space so obviously the garage is overlapping their house if you if you look at their house their lot they don't have enough space at the side and we have 25 ft so obviously that's why maybe the the garage was obstacle uh like hiding the house. But in our cases, so only the tool shed was built before the line cut off and obviously they did not move the whole tool shed and they just built the line. So nothing we can do. It was like built with the house. It must be approved. >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. Um any Yeah. Go ahead, Adam. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh through you. Um, yeah, I share the same concerns about the this uh tool shed being right on the property line. No matter how I got there and uh who is responsible, ultimately it's the homeowner now who um bears the responsibility for it. Um the question I had actually is the planning the um the sort of lot coverage change is the tool shed incorporated in any part of that or is it just exclusively for the uh detached garage >> through you uh chair um to member M's head um the u uh the requirement for law coverage is for all buildings on the property property. So, it would be uh all buildings if that answers your question. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Anything else, Adam? No, not now. Okay. Go ahead, Fay. >> Um through you, chair, I have a question. Um did we I I was did my site visit. I wasn't able to get into the backyard, so I don't feel comfortable supporting this project right now. Um I haven't seen the backyard. I haven't seen any of the overhangs. Um were did we have pictures of the backyard that I missed? >> Uh no pictures. I took some pictures when I was back there uh cuz I went into the backyard today when I did my site visit. Um and just to see the accessory uh dwelling um or not the accessory, the accessory buildings, >> the pool, >> the tool shed and the pool enclosure. >> Okay. I didn't get to I didn't see that. >> Um would you like to see them? Um, I could look at them, but I I also have some questions about how forward that garage is going to be built. And um, when I was there today, I noticed it's a wide driveway already. Um, if we move that garage a lot more forward, how much of that foliage is going to be coming down? And my concern is um it's just going to be I think unless the heritage committee really keeps an eye on how they're building that garage and there's not a two-story garage. It's just a garage. Is that what I'm understanding? [snorts] It's just a garage, one story. There's not any living arrangement up there. Yeah. I just wanted to um I don't feel good about not seeing anything about what the garage is going to look like. >> The [snorts] driveway is quite wide, right? >> The garage will be like a smaller. >> So, the garage is going to be I see the dimensions 20 ft wide, which is a double garage. >> Yeah. It's still like 3 4t left. >> Okay. And um now the the cladding on the the pool enclosure, what's the are you planning to finish that pool enclosure? >> Yes, from outside. Yes. Inside is everything is finished because it's on the beer land uh with the with the concrete underlay so that does not affect does not damage the pool is above ground pool and uh only we have to put sidings. >> Oh, it's an above ground pool. >> Yeah, it's like a vinyl pool. Okay. Um, if I could see those pictures. >> Sure. And Walter, you had your hand up. >> If you want. [snorts] >> Well, either way, >> inside if you want. >> Yeah. Through through your chair, there's the the question about the location of the garage to to a member. Um, member F the the garage, correct me if I'm wrong, is proposed to be in the approximate location of the existing because the driveway goes in and then there's a turnaround. >> Yeah. Okay. It's on the approximately where the pad is, where the turnaround is. >> Oh, it's not moving forward. It's on where that >> No, no. When you turn the the driveway goes in and goes there like that and will be facing [snorts] the >> the sideways from the front. >> Yeah. >> Uh yeah, you'd like to make a comment, please come on up. Just state your name. Uh we know your address for the record, but just if you could state your name. >> Yes. Um my name is My name is Shabnam. I'm um his wife we reside in 214 Main Street East. My question is when I was looking at the conditions related to the garage uh it it had conditions related to be as if it's adjacent to the heritage site whereas the proposed structure is on the left side of the of the house which is >> adjacent to the other house >> which is which is adjacent to the other house not to the heritage side of the building. So I'm just wondering about those conditions being like what are the reasons for those conditions because it is going to be further away from that. >> Okay. Um yeah the conditions from the heritage um you're referring to and they gave us a diagram that showed a yellow line that basically connected the right hand corner of your neighbor to the left hand side of the the the historic house. >> Correct. Uh so they were saying as long as it's built within that yellow area um then and then then that would be permitted according to them. That's what they were recommending. >> Okay. >> I may add to that again the intent of that is to uh maintain sight lines as you're approaching the site from the east. >> Um that any new building doesn't obstruct the sight lines to the heritage building. >> Yeah. >> Obstruct that. My other u question uh would be that when we talking about the the shed I'm sorry when we're talking about the shed um at the back uh that was grandfathered we we we had nothing to do with that in terms of the overall maintenance of that shed. Uh that shed has the same age as the overall house. >> [snorts] >> It's the same um same same construction and it's currently used as a shed. >> Um there's there's nobody residing there. There's no >> uh then if I if I may to the town um they say the word grandfathered. I interpret that a little bit different. Not that they are grandfathering a uh a permitted um accessory unit. they grandfathered the um the task of making it legal. Is that correct? Uh to Walter? >> Yeah, thank you. Um in in terms of grandfathering, the the um it's a colloquial term for uh legal non-conforming, right? So, it's when something is non-conforming, but it's legal because it was legally established and then they and then the municipality changed the rules, but it was originally constructed legally. Right. So that's the key. Constructed legally at the time the the lot was created and when the uh new house was built um the location of the shed uh would have been required by the bylaw at the time to be 1.3 m from the side and rear lot line. So um [snorts] that doesn't comply. So if if it's truly on the lot line, then it doesn't comply with the old bylaw that was in place at the time. So for it to be grandfathered or to be legal non-conforming, it would have to have been legally constructed uh in compliance with the zoning at the time. And if it's if it's not 1.3 m from the lot line, then it clearly hasn't been because the lot was created in 1987 and the bylaw extends all the way back to 1971. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, yeah. Yeah. Go. Let me just turn your mic. >> Sorry. Sorry, ma'am. If you could just speak to the for the record into the microphone. >> I'm sorry. I'm just asking um >> if if you ask if you ask me and I'll direct it out to >> asking the chair. Um, if there was variance taken at the time. >> Okay. >> If we have any record of that. >> Yep. Is there a record of a variance on this property? >> There's there's a record of building permits for the house. Um uh but no records of anything for the shed at the back. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One one more thing I want to add just to help the committee. Uh if you go into the U city of Greensby um zoning website, all the maps are there, all the houses that tool shed is also there. So you you can see that that building was recognized in that map as well as a as a proper building and you can map it, you can measure it, everything. So, it looks like it was there at that time. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead, Kevin. Um, to your point, further to the owner's point, I agree that the map would show it there, but that doesn't make it legal, like legal non-conforming. So, that's the concern here. Um, when you bought it, you bought it in 2021, the property. >> Did you get title insurance? >> I think so. Yeah. Normally lawyers, >> this this might be a case for title insurance claim. I'm not advising you. I'm not a lawyer, but you know, if if there's something that was found to not comply and you've got to make it comply or if we don't approve it tonight, that's the other option is that might be something you might want to take up with your title insurance because again, I still have a concern whether or not you built it or the previous owner or somebody else. I don't like these zero lot line um reductions, especially when you've got to maintain it and get around to it. at some point you're going to have to do something or the drainage issue always comes up. Um I'm reading the heritage report like your your concerns about the heritage. I think they're saying if you go outside that yellow shaded area then you've got to do all these heritage impacts. If you can keep it within that shaded yellow shaded the way I'm reading it anyways you can do a little bit more. or there's a little more flexibility, but um their conditions are more if you go beyond that yellow um area. Um so again, I'm prepared to support that with the re recommendations, but not the zero lot line um reduction request. Could I just ask one more question, Mr. Van? When did you uh acquire your property? >> 93. >> 93. Okay. And do you recall that being there then? That shed. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, >> okay. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I got to get you up to the microphone. I If it was a one-word answer, I' I'd be okay with it. >> We could put that in the record for you. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, I I purchased the property in 93. And yes, the building was there at the time, but that building is about 10 different pieces. Over time, he's added two, added two, added two. And >> previous owner, >> previous own Yeah. two two previous owners. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Uh while you're up, do you have any other comments that you'd like to make? >> No, just again that pool enclosure and needs that needs to be rectified, the cladding on the outside cuz I look at that wooden structure for, you know, two years now and it's not not very pleasing to look at. >> Okay. Uh Walter, you have a comment? Yeah, just with respect to the pool enclosure, a building permit will need to be obtained and a um um it will have to meet the requirements of the Ontario building code. >> Okay. Thank you, Adam. I think I saw your hand up. Do you still have a question or comment? >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. No, Kevin, I actually addressed the issue. Thank >> Okay. >> Yeah, go ahead, Walter. >> Yeah, one more thing. Um uh uh member Antonitis um was referring to uh staff's previous comments about um zero setbacks. In this particular case, it's a little bit unique because there is a storm water uh detention facility directly in behind both properties. Um and the drainage should go to that. Um so there that's why there aren't any typical drainage concerns. And if you note in in the in the report, we do note that uh the Westerly sideyard, we don't object to it provided that the owner can secure or the applicant can secure access to that for maintenance purposes. So I just wanted to reiterate the consistency of our comments. We we do take these into things into consideration. >> Right. So Mr. through the chair. Um, I guess I didn't see that in the uh write up or the recommendation of the motion here. I only see the heritage ones. So, those were valid concerns, but I didn't I guess I didn't tie it into the written >> body. >> It's in the body of your report, but usually they resurface again in the recommendation. So, that's why that those are valid concerns like or or uh um mitigating factors, I guess. So, I don't have a problem to your point with the south lot line reduction down to zero cuz it's just a storm pond, but it's the west lot line with that condition. Perhaps that's an option. But if he doesn't get it, then it's not valid or it's not approved, I guess. How do you address that condition or tie it down? If he doesn't get an agreement, it's null and void, I guess, or it expires or >> and and it's an agreement with who, >> you know, like uh the property. So if it would be your agreement, but then if you ever sell the your house, then then what? Um it becomes an agreement that becomes problemsome in the future or troublesome. Um and one last thing um sorry keep interrupting. One last thing and and again we're we're not surveyors. We don't know exactly where a lot lines are. So we're not 100% sure if there's an encroachment or not. That's something that uh again if if there is an encroachment that's something that we would also have a concern with. Thank you. >> Okay. Yep. Thank you. You're just going off the plan that was provided. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments? Um I I personally have an issue with the access or the garage in the front. I I don't think I agree with the comments that the folks that were reading. Uh you read their letters. Um it's not consistent with the streetscape. Um it uh the accessory buildings need to be in behind or I keep saying accessory building. The garage have to be in behind uh the front of the fa uh house uh especially on Main Street. Um I can't support that. Um but I'll leave it to the committee if someone wants to make a motion. Yeah. You want to make a comment? >> Yes. Uh the same garage has been built like sixth or seventh house on the main street towards the hospital side. There is a house which has a garage on the front and it's lot more closer than the road than mine. One is like 27 28 ft away. That one is like maybe 20 ft and there is a there is already a garage on the road. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, go ahead. Um the proposed garage is going to be if you look at from the main street the proposed garage is going to be hidden in the sense that there are trees and they they're the I'm sorry the complete uh driveway [snorts] uh as opposed to the other example that Emmer was telling you about. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll [snorts] put it to the committee. Is there a YFA? Go ahead. >> Through your chair. I have a I have another question. Um when we're talking about the conditions, the garage be located within the area highlighted in yellow. I think what my interpretation of this from the heritage staff is that even if the garage is built in that area, it has to meet all of these conditions. Is that what everybody else understands? >> Correct. >> Okay. I just wanted to clear that up. I think I'm not really comfortable going ahead and look without seeing what this garage is going to look like um and seeing a better floor plan to be very honest. So, if we want to take a if someone wants to make a motion. >> Yep. Anybody want to make a motion? I I'll uh take a stab at it. Okay. If I could. Um I [clears throat] heard a lot of uh comments, feedback, reports, question, answer. I I think the heritage people have tied it down pretty tight with these conditions on the garage at the front with all these studies and impacts. Um, I think the building permit can catch the pool enclosure with requiring the building permit and siding. Uh, I think the storm water at the back answers my rear lot line uh, reduction down to zero, but I still have a problem with the side or the west lot line reduction down to zero. So, I'll I'll I'll go through the motion the way I would make it. Um, and we'll see what the committee feels. Resolved minor variance application A 1426 for 214 Main Street East to permit a maximum lot coverage of 25% whereas a maximum lock coverage of 15%. I don't have a problem with that according to the sections outlined to permit the construction of the garage in the front yard with a setback of 23.8 m. Again, it's far enough back from the street. I think the impact and the screening with the existing uh vegetation will help screen that and the the conditions that we're going to talk about. So whereas in no case an accessory dwelling be located closer to the street than this front wall of the dwelling. According to 418 table 2 zoning by 1445 is amended to an accessory building to be zero m from the rear lot line whereas an accessory building is required to be a minimum of 1.3 m from the lot line according to section 418 table 2 as amended. But I'm going to scratch out this in my motion to permit the accessory building be located zero from the side lot line where an accessory dwelling requires 6 m from the sideline. So I'm going to scratch that part and approve or make the motion on the first 3/4 of it if you want to call it that uh be approved with the conditions. We've read them in detail 1 through seven. I think eight being a building permit would be required for the pool enclosure and uh and tool shed. Um but that it be required to meet the sideyard. I'm kind of reiterating but uh that's my motion anyways for the reasons we've heard written verbal submissions and uh meeting the four tests. >> Okay. Uh any further discussion? >> [clears throat] >> Do we have a seconder for that? Adam, you going to second that? Okay. Um, so let's put it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? It is carried. Uh, so there's a 20-day appeal period before this becomes legal and binding. Uh, so everything was was approved except the Westerly uh lot line has to be moved back. Is that correct? Yep. My understanding is not the lot line has to be moved. The the the setback along the West Street lot line >> 839. I did my best. >> Yeah. Thank [laughter] you. >> Perfect. The the accessory building has to move. Yeah. Um [clears throat] excellent. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh go ahead. Yep. >> Yeah. Uh how it is possible that old tool shed you cannot move. how you can do that from the west line which is only like 8 ft stretch and it's just hanging over uh maybe the the division is not perfect. So should we uh do a division correction or >> I I could suggest to suggest talking to a contractor how they can make it comply. They might have to cut it back and remove it back or again talk to your title insurance people if there's a remedy cuz you might be making a claim under your title insurance about remedying it because the basically you've got to now meet 6 meter setback to remove the eaves from your neighbor's property on that side. So there's going to be some construction costs required to meet that unfortunately. So I would talk to your insurance. So we are talking about only the >> hanging over thing. >> Well the wall has to be sorry the wall the side wall has to be 6 m from the property line right. So if it's zero now it's got to be moved 2 ft roughly. >> So if it was built by the building >> and and it was before the division of this land. >> Was it before? because I can't see them approving a severance with a zero lot line unless it was recognized at the time of the >> seance. You don't have any documentation. You have only building >> either way the decision has been rendered. So there'll be a 20-day appeal period uh before it becomes binding. You can appeal this to the Ontario Land Tribunal if you'd like to um go through that route. Um and uh otherwise, yeah, that's great advice. Talk to your title insurance company and uh potentially with a contractor about that. I just want to uh put it on the record that when I was submitting this application uh the tool shed was not in the question because it was old building and I was talking about the pool and the and the garage. Then I have been asked that you should include the tool shed because it has a zero value. I said but I didn't build it. It was it came with the house. So why should then I have been told no you have to add it. So it's not like my wish to add it and now I have to work on it. >> Yes. So from from our perspective, we only applied for the pool permit and the garage. We never applied for the shed because it was there. We grant like we took it over. We bought the property as it >> as it is. And now it was suggested to us by the staff that we need to add this. >> Mhm. It's good. It's good to have it added so that you can make everything bring everything up to legal standards on your property. Um, so as it sits right now, it has been uh our decision has been rendered. So you can go through the appeal process. There is appeal process within 20 days and you can go to the OOLT and you can present your case and you can have them rule on it as well. Uh so that would be your next step after this >> perspective. This is not fair. We only applied for the pool and the garage. We never applied for the shed >> and in in our in fairness suggested >> why should we bear all the cost of the construction and everything? This is not fair on >> to insurance. >> Yeah. Talk to your insurance. >> Can I ask one more thing? The house itself build more than 15%. House itself. So house is illegal too. No, because you guys have a documentation. Okay. Somebody build it. That's it. You have no variance applications. You have no nothing but house itself more than 15% and at that time was 15% was the boundary line. So how there [clears throat] >> I have to interrupt here. The requirement at the time when the house was built was 35%. >> They reduced it. >> So it means the tool shed should be okay >> percentage wise but not lot line not the the lot line setbacks. >> Sir in in fairness this decision has been made. So, we're going to end our meeting and you [clears throat] have the ability to appeal to the OOLT uh within 20 days of this decision. Thank you. [snorts] Uh so, this uh the next meeting for committee of adjustment will be held on September 15th, 2026. And this meeting is adjourned.