Good evening everyone. I'm going to call this meeting to order for the committee of adjustment for May 19th, 2026. Uh committee members in attendance this evening are Kevin Antonitis, uh FA Billing, Adam Mers Head, and Dylan Bailey are online, and myself, Daniel Collins. Staff members present this evening are Walter Basik the manager of community planning. Uh Wing Puh the technical support specialist, uh Bianca Verakia, the intermediate heritage planner, and Delhara Abby Wardin, the secretary treasurer. Members of the public are advised that our meetings are 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 going to give an overview of procedures and then we're going to do some committee busy work and then after that we'll get into the applications um that we have for us this evening. Uh so just an overview of the procedures uh the purpose of the application and relative correspondence will be heard followed 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 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 Abiwin, the secretary treasurer at coaggrimsby.ca. CA. 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 notice under sub subsection 17 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 the opportunity to comment on the applications being heard. Please address your comments and questions through me, the chair. Each participant will be provided five minutes to speak. Each participant may only speak once. If you hear your comment presented by someone else, please do not duplicate the 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 a pecuniary 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. Will someone please make a motion to adop adopt the agenda as presented? Fay, thank you. And Adam, you're going to second. I appreciate that. And we'll put this to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand or say I. I see no one in opposition. That is carried. Are there any requests for withdrawal or adjournment? >> No, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Have committee members had the opportunity to review the minutes from April 21st, 2026? And are there any questions or concerns about the minutes? Okay, I see none. Can I request a mover and a seconder for those to pass that? Adam. So, Adam will move Kevin. Thank you. Let's put this to a vote. Uh, all in favor raise your hand. Yeah, Dylan's there too. Good. Okay. And I see no one in opposition. That is also carried. Okay. On to the applications. We have three applications this evening. The first application is to be heard is going to be A04-26 for 288 Kemp Road West. I'm going to request that uh the secretary treasurer present the application via PowerPoint. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the purpose of this application is to facilitate the use of a temporary tent and the variance requested is to permit a temporary tent from May 1st to November 1st on an annual basis whereas temporary tents are permitted to be erected for not more than 2 weeks. And um this is a copy of like the site plan uh and where the tent is going to be located which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. This is a picture of uh the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and um this is what is proposed for the tent. These are the agencies that have provided comments and I will summarize those comments for you. Now planning staff recommend that um this minor variance application be approved subject to the following conditions. Condition number one, that the temporary tent be erected from May 1st to November 1st on an annual basis until November 1st, 2029. That the temporary tent can only be located as indicated for the plans submitted for this minor variance. Heritage planning staff note that in accordance with the provincial planning statement and official plan, development and site alteration shall not be permitted within areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved or the land has been investigated and cleared or mitigated following clearance from the province. As noted, based on the temporary nature of the proposed works and the minimal disturbance to the soil, an archaeological assessment is not required. Development engineering staff note that they do not have any comments for the proposed minor variance. The NPCA staff note that the proposal is located in the fringe of a provisionally significant wetlands boundary to the north. The regulation distance of a wetland does not pose immediate risk to attendees. A formal clearance should be retained for our officers annually for the proposed tent to ensure it continues to align with the intent of the NPCA's policies and mandate. NPC staff note no objections to the proposed minor variance. Um the Niagara region said the following. Regional infrastructure planning and development staff have no objections to the approval of the minor variance application. Regional staff note that the proposed temporary tent and Porsche parties provided there is no increase in the maximum occupancy allowed for events on the property. No events are held inside and outside at the same time and the Porsche parties po sorry Porteries are removed immediately after each event. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Uh, now I'd like to call on the owner or their agent to come to the microphone and if you could just speak to uh the reasons why you would like to have the minor variance. >> Would you also be able to state your name and address for the record? >> Definitely. Nella Flutter. I apply for the minor variant 288 Cam Road West Grimby. Um the reason I we want to put it up uh first of all I have my daughter's wedding in September and um we want to do it a little bit earlier because I will have probably a bridal shower sometime during the day um August. Um I have my niece who's got a baby and in June the 27th we have a baby shower. So instead of doing it every you know time just apply I find it cheaper in our part to just do one time the tent and uh just leave it there for the season. >> Okay thank you. Um are there any questions right now from uh the committee? >> Yeah go ahead Adam. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. uh through you um I guess the applicant or perhaps planning staff. Would this permit is this just for this year or is this uh carried forward for every year? >> Um yeah, go ahead. >> 32 I hope I'm going to get him, you know, married too soon because he's engaged for the last two month two years. Um, so that's why we said, you know, we had it in the past uh for 4 years or 5 years if I'm if I'm not mistaken, but we only use it two years. The other two years I don't need it. I didn't put it up. So that's the only reason we apply for the minor variant. >> Okay. Um to that, if I may um add on to Adam's question, and this is more for staff and and if you want to answer it too. Um, in the past, I noticed that you applied for this variance before and had a three-year variance for the tent. That's correct. You're now applying for another 3 years. Why only three? Is maybe I'll put that to Walter first or is or is that of the applicants doing? >> To be honest, I don't know. Did Did you ask for three years? I think I I think it was >> pretty much I just went by what we had in the past to me was new at that time. So that's what I was told at the time for Mr. Richard Perma. This is the one the one who helped me and I I pretty much came here and I said I want the same thing. So it is longer than 3 years. I did not know that. >> No, like from what I see in the application um it's um on the annual basis until November 1st, 2029. >> Yes. >> Um and so >> so that's three years. >> Yeah. 3 years from now. And and the last one was also a threeyear. So when I look at that, I I'm curious why it's three, like why not 10 years? Um and and if there's a planning principle as to why it can't be 10, um why are we coming back every 3 years to renew it if if that's what your plan is to continue to have this tent? >> You know what? I didn't even think of that question. So I apply how it was in the past. So I kept it like that. And I did not know that we can apply for longer than 3 years. But right now, I'm going to keep at it three and we'll see where, you know, where we're going. >> Okay. Walter, you have something to add. >> Thank you. Excuse me. The um the current zoning permission is for a very short period of time. So, the longer you extend it, um there's the question of whether it's minor or not. So, that's that's the one principle that you have to take into consideration. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee or comments? No. Okay, Adam, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh through you again, Mr. Chair. Um just that the actual notice circulate just said on an annual basis. It didn't specify any uh time restrictions. >> Okay. Yep. Thank you. Um, is that something you want me to uh kind of put to the committee or to the secretary treasurer or just a comment for the record? >> Uh, just a comment for the record. Thank you. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. No problem. Thank you. Okay. Um, do we have a motion from the committee? >> Yeah. Uh, Dylan, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, be it resolved that minor variance A0426 for 288 Camp Road West to permit a temporary tent from May 1st to November 1st on an annual basis. Whereas annual temporary tents are permitted to be erected for not more than 2 weeks as per section 3.34b in zoning bylaw 1445 as amended be approved as it meets the four tests along with two conditions. The first being that the temporary tent be erected from May 1st to November 1st on an annual basis until November 1st, 2029. And number two, that the temporary tent can only be located as indicated per plan submitted for this minor variance. >> Okay, thank you. Um any discussion on the matter? You second it. Okay, so we have it seconded by uh Kevin. Um so then we'll put it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand or say I. I see no one uh in opposition. So, that is passed. That is carried. Um just note that there's a 20-day appeal period um from today's decision uh before it becomes binding. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. >> Uh the next application is A05-26 for 37 St. Andrews Avenue and I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer to uh present uh the application via PowerPoint. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> I'm just waiting for my slide to turn. Okay. So, the purpose of this application is to facilitate the construction of a detached garage and the variances requested are as follows. To permit a maximum lot coverage of 11.2% for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas a maximum lot coverage of 10% is permitted. and to permit a maximum lot coverage of 30% in an RD3 zone whereas a maximum lot coverage of 25% is permitted. This is um an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. This is an image of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site. These are some uh pictures of elevations of what is proposed at the site and u these are the agencies that have provided comments and I will summarize those comments for you now. Um planning staff have recommended that this minor variance application be approved subject to the following conditions. 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 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 Gwensby 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 Grimby 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 Coroner 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 follow the steps outlined in the Niagara region archaeological management plan, appendix A. Condition number three, that the owner is to ensure accuracy and assume responsibility of the locations to the lot boundaries. Accordingly, measurements on the attached site plan for setbacks and lot coverage are to be measured to the exterior face of the walls. Development engineering department has no comments or conditions. Heritage planning has the following to say in addition to the two conditions I read out initially. In accordance with the uh provincial planning statement and official plan, development and site alteration shall not be permitted within areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved or the land has been investigated and cleared or mitigated following clearance from the province agencies. There are no comments from any other agencies or the public. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. uh is the uh I'd like to call the owner or their agent up to the microphone to speak to the reasons for the variance. And if you could just state your name and address for the record. >> Hi everybody. Uh my name is Amy Vandercoy. I'm my husband and I Ryan have uh applied for the variance and I live at 37 St. Andrews as our primary residence. Um so uh overall the purpose for the um space is just to build a functional garage and the image that came up you can't really see we do actually have a very small space you'd call as a garage. Uh it's you couldn't actually get a car in it but it is considered a garage. Um so we are looking to build something that is could be used as garage and a bit of a like natural workspace. Um and then there is a second area um above like sort of loft style um that would be a work room for me. We do not have a lot of uh storage space or working space inside of our home. It's not actually that small. It's just not very well designed for that function. Um so we are looking to just use our space efficiently. Uh we spend a lot of time there and do a lot of projects. So we would like to just be able to enjoy our space with our kids and be able to do that. Um, so that's the reason for it. Uh, we tried to stay within sort of the sense of what is there. So we've tried to place it in a position on the property that would not be invasive to anyone else. We've talked to our neighbors around us and sort of discuss with them before we even put the proposal forward just to make sure that it wasn't sort of going to be upsetting to anybody um in our neighborhood. We've tried to stick to something that's very um sort of though it is obviously a little bit larger than what was there, it's it's it's meant to be sort of something a bit secluded because it's quite back onto our property so that it's not in anyone else's space as much as possible. >> Um do you want me to respond at this point to the two conditions that are put forward? I >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. You can comment on all all conditions. Yeah. So, um, when we read through the conditions that were sent back to us, um, obviously the second condition around, you know, finding anything that is buried, no issue whatsoever. Happy to oblige with any of that. Um, we do have some concern around the need for an archaeological assessment partially because the space itself is actually very disturbed. So, um, beside the actual garage space, obviously there's other building stuff that has happened. We have a like shelter overhang space, walkways, um, and behind that is all garden space and spaces that have been rotatilled and turned up and multiple times over. Um, so then I so I did call the town asking for some clarification around what what made this so that we had to do this, what was what was the reasoning, what was the logic and the numbers. I I I couldn't there was no information in that as to why or how. Um so what was as far as I understand this if I've understood correctly so the requirement was due to the project needing so if if the project triggered more than 36 square meters of of new excavation um as a note that it was per se triggered in terms of this condition would not actually been required if we were just looking for a building permit. It is only considered if we are actually looking for a variance which feels a little confusing to me as to why it would be required under one condition and not another. Um we are admittedly over the 10% but only barely. Um our pre-existing space already is over the 25% allowance. So like what was already there for long long long before that rule was a rule um is is been there. So that was something that we no matter what we did, we were going to end up having to ask our varants for actual square footage usage and whatever on our property if we did anything larger than what was there. So um in order to kind of do anything we were going to run the risk of this. Um and my understanding is that the spirit of the requirement is meant to protect unexavated spaces from damage or disturbance of any significant sites. So, I think the spirit of it is meant to be very um positive. I just don't know that our space quite fits that criteria. So, this was sort of what I was looking for a bit more clarification on. So, after talking to the town staff, I did um seek out discussion with one archaeologist. I was only able to catch one agency because between Thursday when I found this and now, but um I was able to discuss with one archaeologist. um he shared with me that a stage one assessment is actually not really something that gets done. Um because it basically it's it's not going to tell us anything we don't already know in terms of he said that like there there's really nothing else he could seek out that isn't already understood. So if the region has already identified this space potentially as a space of of concern, then there was nothing more he was going to get out of a stage one. So he could charge me the $1,000 to do that, but it was going to tell you nothing. Um, so realistically, we were going for a stage two is what we were going to have to do in order to actually sort per say clear the space. Um, that's a minimum sort of 38 to $4,000 bill. Um, because of the size of our property. So he said to me, "Well, how big is it?" and sort of asked and he said, "Oh, well, I don't normally work on spaces that small, first of all, but because um one of the town staff had suggested maybe I ask if we could just sort of just do the space that was um that was needed, which made sense. Um but they can't do that because he could only drill probably one to three holes in that space. Um so I'd be paying him $4,000 to go dig one hole and sift soil for one hole, which didn't feel very um clear. wasn't going to give us a lot of answers potentially. Uh so he has to work within every so they they the rules are that they have to do these at 5 m intervals but they will not disturb already pre-existing structures or development. So they will not go through our driveway. They will not go through the obvious obviously the current garage any patio stones or patio areas we have um obviously not the house. Uh, and so if I look at the space of our property, so our property is about 15 m by 42 m. Um, and assuming he works at my my, you know, when we masked it out as we were talking, you know, if he works from the back of the property to the front, which would give him the most access to the garage type area, he would get between one and three holes in the actual space that we would actually be looking to excavate. Um, so that that sort of seemed like a bit of an odd ask from my perspective in order to actually give us any clear answers as to whether there's actually a problem. When I spoke with the region staff, they were not able to explain to me what happens if, let's say, he finds something in my front lawn because he would be digging holes in my front lawn. um if he found something in my front lawn, what am I responsible for or not responsible for at this point? So, I don't know if anybody else in this room can help me understand that. I I don't have an answer to that. Uh so, we're hoping that we can kind of have a conversation about um maybe what what is the intended outcome of this piece and what information are we going to gather from it. I'm happy to play by the rules and do what needs to be done. Um, but the reality for us is that if if this just opens sort of a a question that's not going to give us a lot of answers and we have to damage multiple spots in our property and we're going to pay a lot of money for this to possibly result in not giving us the answers that we need to go forward. We will have to very carefully assess whether we actually pursue this project, which is kind of heartbreaking to me because it's a project we've been considering for the 14 plus years we've lived there. Um, we've waited a long time to consider this and we've tried to be very responsible with how we chose to pursue this. If we absolutely need to, we can look at potentially shifting the garage farther forward. does get it closer to other people's spaces. But if we shift it a little bit further forward, we could use more of the already existing disturbance than what was currently proposed, which conceptually um if we use that space, then we would be un just under the 36 square meters um which would theoretically then remove that that condition, I believe. So that'd be kind of my thoughts. I don't know if anybody has any better suggestions or thoughts, but that's that's our that's our first thought. >> Okay. Thank you. Um before we get to that, because I do want to talk about that uh the stage one archaeological assessment as you've mentioned, um I want to put it to the committee first. Are there any thoughts or comments from the committee FA? Go ahead. >> Um through you, chair. I have a question about the foundation of this garage. It's on slab. Are there footings? You're my go-to for construction. So, I don't see anything on this this uh side elevation >> uh in terms of just says on grade. So, how much earth is actually going to be uh removed or disturbed with >> Okay, I'll put that back to the applicant. Is it a footing or >> footing or it's on? >> Okay, I I can just accept that one answer now. Um just because we have to be on the mic. >> Y sorry I can answer that then if that's for the record. So on a monolithic slab is that the right answer there. >> Okay. So a slab on grade. Um so they might be going down 18 in 24 in >> on the outsides >> I would guess. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any any other questions from the committee? >> Uh go ahead Dylan. Yeah, just a real quick one. Um, just so there's not going to be anybody or actually is it is this building going to be used year round or is it more of a seasonal building? >> Conceptually, it would be used year round. We It will have like our, you know, basic tools in it and I will have like a sewing room upstairs is the goal and some storage. nothing like it's not going to be a living space or anything. It's not going to be a a large like there's no high traffic, but conceptually, >> no, that's that's sort of what I'm getting at that. The upstairs is just a utility room and when it's February, there will likely be no one in there. Okay. >> All right. And and I guess through you, Mr. chair just just and Adam is maybe going to talk about this but just sort of staff's comments on the arch archaeological assessment. >> Yeah, Dylan, are you sorry Adam you're going to say the same thing or do you have a fresh comment? >> Uh I was actually going to ask planning um just give their interpretation of what would happen during the stage one um in response to the uh delegates comments. I'll put that to Bianca. >> Thank you through the chair. Um so the phases of archaeology starts with the phase one. Um so that's to see if there is potential for the need for a stage two. Um so what the archaeologist is likely referencing is the archaeological master plan. So that plan was conducted um with licensed archaeologists. Um, and so a lot of that data in there was to determine the area of potential, which is similar to a stage one. Um, but the archaeological master plan references a stage 1 to two. So, we're just following the guidelines that are presented to us. Um, and then it could um, it'll likely proceed to a stage two. We hear most of the time it's more cost effective to do a stage one to two uh, rather than separating them. Um, and then it continues to progress. So at stage two they find a significant amount of resources. Then stage three will be additional test pits and then stage four is either full remediation from the site where all the archa ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar archaeological resources are removed or in the event of like a burial site um they'll consult with indigenous communities to find out the boundaries of the burial and where additional disturbance can happen around it. Um so that's kind of how the phasing takes place. >> Thank you. Uh, any further questions? You got some. >> Yeah, I was just going to say through you, Mr. Chair. Um, Amy, I I I appreciate you doing all the homework for us because we've heard this from other homeowners coming in for garage variances and things like that, but none of them have done the homework like you did. So, we appreciate that. And to put you at ease, we have removed that condition in several cases where we feel it's minor. So, in this case, I would agree it's a um not a reasonable condition to put on something that's, you know, expanding from 384 ft² to 770 ft² in an area that's already obviously disturbed in an urban residential setting. So, I'm prepared to remove that condition um subject to the committee support, but when it comes time for that. >> Okay. In that case, uh I don't know if we need to further discuss the archaeological assessment if if that's what you're suggesting. Before I do that, is there anyone in the public that want to speak to this application? No, I see none. Okay. Uh do we have a motion or uh from the committee, do you want to make a motion? I can. Mr. Chair, um so hearing the evidence both written and verbal and considering the staff reports and their requests for the conditions, I am prepared to move the following um motion. and resolve that minor variance application A526 for 37 St. Andrews to permit the a maximum lot coverage of 11.2% for an accessory dwelling in a residential zone whereas a maximum lot coverage of 10% is permitted according to the 4.8 8 or sorry 4.18 table 2 in zoning B 1445 is amended to permit a maximum lot coverage of 30% in an RD3 zone whereas a maximum lot coverage of 25% is permitted according to section 721 table 11 zoning BA 1445 as amended as it meets the four tests being minor in nature uh appropriate for the development use of the property meets the intent of the official plan zoning bylaw and hearing the discussion on the need for the archeological. I think stage two or the condition two covers that adequately in my opinion. So, I'm prepared to move it with the two conditions being two and three. I don't know if you want me to read those, Mr. Chair, but uh would you like us to read those or No, you're good. >> You're good. >> Y Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on that uh motion? Uh do I have a seconder? Fay. Okay. And let's put this to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand or say I. Any opposed? >> I see none opposed. So, that is carried. >> Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Sorry. No, I I think Adam had a question before you called the vote. >> Okay, go ahead, Adam. Sorry, I didn't see that. >> Sorry about that. Um, yeah, I was just wondering if staff just has some any kind of general data on past development in that area and whether archaeological assessments have uh unearthed anything, I guess would be the the term. >> Okay, I'll put that to staff. >> Uh, three, the chair. Uh, so the archaeological master plan, sorry, I keep calling it master plan. It's a management plan. Um it um was assessed through the archaeological uh sorry the archaeologists. Um and so there's uh criteria established through the ministry that they reference and they're looking at things like distance from a burial site, distance from the escarment, distance from um like a river or a water feature. Um in those areas particularly, that's where there's more likelihood of finding an archeological resource. Um so that's how the area of potentials are established. Um so that particular area in uh the town does have a lot of potential um due to features around it. Uh a lot of the like further details on where these like attributes or like uh resources have been found um or where actual burial sites are and things like that remains confidential um so that the resources aren't dug up or um vandalized. Um but that's how the potential area is basically um identified. >> Okay. >> Dylan, you have your hand up. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So just so through you, Mr. Chair, to staff. So it is the recommendation from staff in order to have the rec the archaeological assessment done in order to comply with provincial policy and the and the management plan. Is that correct? through the chair. Sorry, Dylan, could you just repeat the beginning of that question again? >> Sorry. No, I just I just the I just want to make it I just so just so I'm clear, but at at this time and obviously the way the the report has been written, staff does recommend having the arch archaeological assessment based on provincial policy and the archaeological management plan. Is that correct >> through the chair? Yes, that's correct. So um the way the management plan works, it basically helps us to implement the provincial policy. Um and so they have established criteria inside of this management plan. And when I say they, it's the licensed archaeologists. Um so they're the professionals that identify the areas of potential. Um so um because this is proposing to be larger than that 36 meters squared that's referenced within the scoping criteria, we um have an obligation to provide you with that information um that an archaeological assessment is required. Um and so that's essentially where the recommendations are coming from. Something that um I spoke with the applicant about was the fact that the area that's currently disturbed with the existing uh building um has it's hard cuz I can't determine if it's disturbed or not. It has to be an archaeologist, but there's a slab there. So, we talked about integration of that slab in the new construction. That way, we're not disturbing a new area with that portion. And when we did the math, it was like that was about 35 square meters, the existing one, and then the new one would be about 35 square meters um making it be below the scoping criteria. So that was something that staff could be supportive of because there's no disturbance um greater than 36 m. And again, we're following the guidelines in the master uh the management plan. Um, so that was something we were trying to work with to try and see if there was an opportunity here. But aside from that, there's no flexibility within this plan for us to wave or say that this area is already disturbed. It's it's a licensed archaeologist that can ultimately make that decision. It's a very regulated field. So, we're just not able to make that call. >> So, so again through you, Mr. Chair, just following up on that. I'm sorry Adam to cut in but is the committee is the committee of adjustment then as a quasi judicial body then able to wave such a provision you know understanding that it is a financial um burden on um or commitment I guess you could say on um you know on on town citizens which I completely understand as one of them Um but you know does that you know since this is part of provincial policy it's recommended by staff by us waving that do we then undermine what provincial policy has dictated or are we creating a liability for the town should something you know should something be found in the assessment not be done you know given sort of you know our um commitment to indigenous reconciliation um you know sort of byst stepping or you know stepping over some of these requirements um you know may not forward that goal in the best possible. So I just sort of I just put that out there for I guess the committee to consider. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you Dylan. Um, do you want me to um ask that to the the town or are you just a comment for us to consider? >> I think right now it's just a comment for us to consider. I mean, it's my understanding that we can wave that. I just I'm assuming that this won't sort of come back to us or if it does that, you know, our very clever town staff will deal with it on our behalf. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you for the comment. Adam, you your hand up. >> Thank you. uh through you Mr. Chair. Um just to confirm with planning uh the calculations of the new area to be disturbed is actually under 36 m uh through the chair. Um that calculation is basically based on like their existing square footage and what they're proposing. So yeah, when we did the math it was like about 35 square meters. Um, so I felt confident that was within the scoping criteria if we were utilizing the existing slab. So yeah, I think that was really the only option we had to have any flexibility. >> Okay, thank you. I would be >> I think >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Remember uh Mo's head said uh just to clarify that it's if the building is moved to be almost fully occupying the existing slab that you would dip under that 36 m which was suggested by by as a consideration by the applicant. So um the uh uh so that's where the calculation comes from. If the if the proposed building location is moved to almost fully occupy the slab that's already there. >> Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, so what I have seen on the um the site plan drawing would represent uh that 36 square meter of extra. Correct. >> Yeah. If the there's a dotted line on the site plan drawing that identifies the location of the existing slab and as you see a lot of the existing slab is in front of the proposed building. So if the building was to be moved forward by a few meters to match the dotted line as much as possible then that that would get you under the 36. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, as I was going to say, generally I wouldn't be supportive of removing that condition, but because the the net area to be changed is under the 36 m, then I'm fine with it. >> Uh, Dylan, do you have something else to say? I just saw you light up there. No. Okay. Um, I'm going to I want to put this back to um Kevin. Uh, you put forward a motion. Are you going to stand by that motion? >> Yeah. >> Okay, then. Can I uh f will you stand by the second? Okay. So, it is uh this motion is on the floor. It's been seconded and we have to put it to a vote. Uh so, all in favor of uh uh member Antonitis's uh motion to remove the the first condition uh raise your hand or say I. Any opposed? I see one. Okay. So, that is carried. Uh, and there will be a 20-day appeal period before that becomes binding. Thank you. The final application we have this evening is for B0426 uh for 514 and 532 Ridge Road East. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the purpose of this application is to sever 725 square meters of land shown as part two from the surrounding lands of part three and merge them with the adjacent lands municipally known as 532 Ridge Road East shown as part one. The application represents a boundary adjustment. The boundary adjustment will facilitate the construction of a second story addition to the existing one-story single detached dwelling as well as a front and rear covered porch on the lands identified as part one. The application will also facilitate the construction of a new entrance to the property and the installation of a new septic system. The subject property is situated within both the town of Grimby and the town of Lincoln. Accordingly, applications for consent to server have been submitted to each municipality. This is an image of the location map as was circulated with the notice appearing. And this is an image of the severance sketch which was also circulated with the notice. This is an image of the neighborhood. For context, both properties are included uh within the yellow lines. These are the current conditions on each of the sites and this is uh the front and rear elevation of what is proposed. These are the agencies that have submitted comments and I will summarize those comments for you now. Uh planning staff have recommended that consent application uh be approved subject to the following conditions. That the applicant provide the secretary treasurer with deeds in triplicate for conveyance of the subject parcel. 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 2 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. Subsection 305 of section 50 of the planning act RSO 1990 shall apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the severed land. Acknowledgement that upon transfer of the land that an opinion letter from the applicant's legal representative confirming that the lands of part two and part one have merged be provided to the town. The opinion letter shall include any new legal descriptions and pins that the applicant satisfy the conditions of approval for the corresponding lot line/boundary adjustment for the town of Lincoln committee of adjustment application file number PLC N2026004. And finally, that the owner be informed of the following advisory clause. If deeply buried or previously undiscovered archeological 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 Coroner 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 follow the steps outlined in the Niagara region archaeological management plan appendix A. Development engineering staff have no commence or conditions. Grimsby power have no commence or conditions. The NPCA said previously reviewed the NEC development permit applications. No concerns with the minor boundary adjustment proposed in this application. A formal NPCA clearance permit will be required for the installation of the proposed septic system. The Nigara region said the comments provided to the NEC as part of the development permit process remain applicable. The new septic system is to be installed wholly within the new lot lines while maintaining enough land on the subject property for a replacement system. Um the heritage planning department said due to the land being disturbed prior to this planning act application being submitted, a stage 1 to2 archaeological assessment is no longer required and the recommended conditions have been revised. It is important to note that this property has not been cleared of archeological potential and future studies may be required as a part of other planning applications. Since the property has not been cleared for archeological potential, the warning clause continues to be recommended condition of approval for the property owner's reference. Further staff request that the previous heritage memo submitted for this application be disregarded and I have already read um the condition heritage staff recommended um along with the conditions I read out previously. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. uh is the owner or their agent here and could you come to the microphone just state your name and address for the record and then speak to the reasons for consent. Thank you. >> Good evening chair and members of committee. My name is Ruchica Angish. I'm a professional planner uh address 32 Charing Cross Street in Brford. I'm representing the owner of the property here for this m minor boundary adjustment. Um they are looking uh they actually we've been working on this file for over a year now. They've received building permits uh NEC permits for the addition to the existing home as well as uh the septic permit that that is required for that addition. So the construction is underway. Um the the property is unique. It uh straddles between both town of Grim Grimby and as well as town of Lincoln. So uh we had to go through uh the town of Lincoln committee of adjustment process where they have approved the uh the minor boundary adjustment on this application and here we are tonight seeking uh committee's uh approval. Um the we have read through the staff report and uh as mentioned the heritage planning staff had uh numer significant discussions about where the project is sitting with the building permits already issued. There's no as such construction going to happen on the property and uh and hence uh uh the amended condition to remove the archaeological stage one assessment is uh is being asked uh to the committee. I'm happy to answer any more questions you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? >> I see none. Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry. Through just out of curiosity, did Lincoln put a condition in for an archeological study? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions from the committee? >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. What was the answer to that question? >> Uh, the answer was no. There was no condition from the town of Lincoln. Uh, are there anyone in the public that want to speak to this? I see none. Do we have a motion? >> I'll give you a minute. >> Oh, FA. Yeah, go ahead. >> Through the chair. Um, I just want to get something straight here. Um, and it's if you could help me here. So, this was um a house that was to be built cuz it's built now. Okay. So, we're approving the land um request. That's it. Or are we approving the variances on on the new build that's built? >> From my understanding, there are no variances. It's just a um a lot boundary adjustment. Um I'm I'm curious how a building permit was issued um before the planning staff, but that's not for this committee right now, I don't think. Yeah. Um so I won't ask that question. Um anyway, >> if I can help. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um so if I can help um the building permit was issued because we meet the set the minimum setback requirements for the addition for the house and everything. We need this. It's 10 ft a few feet on the sides uh to to give that a little bit extra room for that addition to function properly for the property to function properly. And then also with the new septic bed, there's um additional land that is required in case in future. So um and so that's that's two sides of the property. And on another side there's a existing garage that sits at the back. There's no construction or rebuilding of that garage that is happening. And uh the the way the driveway extends, it needs to go around uh to to access that garage. And that little piece is on someone else's land. So we need that boundary adjustment on the third side. So uh there's no minor variances that are associated with it. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh Walter, did you have a comment? >> Yeah, thank you. Um there the reason there's no variances requested in this particular case. There would have been a variance required if it was outside or if it was within our zoning jurisdiction, but it's not. Uh this property is outside of our zoning jurisdiction because it's in the Nagascar development control boundary. So, our zoning is suspended in that area and uh so they had to apply first for a development permit to permit the severance and they had to apply for a development permit to permit the addition to the house. It's an addition or a a new new house. >> It's a new reconstruction addition. >> It's an addition. >> Addition. Yeah. >> So, it was for the addition, right? So, um, when the Nagger Scarment development permit application was circulated to the town, we did ask for a, um, an archaeological assessment, they didn't include it as a condition of a development permit. The construction wasn't in the town of Lincoln. Therefore, they didn't ask for it. That's why they didn't ask for it, not because we do and they don't. Um and uh and that and so the only jurisdiction we have is for the consent application which the Niagara Scarment Commission already approved. >> Just wanted to make those clarifications. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Just follow up then. Did NEC require it? Did NEC require the archeological? >> No, they did not. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's that's what I said. They did not include that as a condition of of the development permit >> because they're not in our church. There's no construction in the town of Lincoln. >> Okay. Uh any other questions from the committee or motion? Yeah. Go ahead, Fay. >> I can uh through your chair, I can make a motion on this. Um I have to say when I went up there, I was surprised that the house was built, but it was built to my um my gentle happiness when I saw the construction was well organized. the land around the con the actual construction site. None of the trees were damaged. They weren't ripped down. I thought that this is just a very simple need to have a few um meters of land and so I can support this wholeheartedly. Um, I'd like to move that it's resolved um that consent application B04-26 for 514-532 Ridge Road East to sever plus or minus 725 m of land shown as part two from the surrounding lands part three and merge them with the adjacent lands municipally known as 532 Ridge Road East as Part one, the application represents a boundary adjustment. The boundary adjustment will facilitate the construction of a second story addition which is done to the existing one-story single detached dwelling as well as front and rear covered porch on the lands identified as part one. The application will also facilitate the construction of a new entrance to the property and the installation of a new septic system be approved with the conditions. Um, there are seven conditions. Do you want me to read them out? We've covered them once. >> No, that's okay. We've covered them already. Thank you. Um, all right. So, we have a motion. Any further discussion on that motion? No. Okay, Kevin will second that. Thank you. And we will now put this to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand or say I. I see no one opposed. So, that is carried. Uh, just note there's a 20-day appeal period from the from the decision. Thank you. The next meeting for committee of adjustment will be held June 16th, 2026. And that adjourns our meeting for this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye.