recording in progress. >> Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the meeting uh to order for committee of adjustment September 15, 2026. I'm going to introduce the committee members and staff. The committee members in attendance this evening are FA Billing is to my right, Adam Mshadhead is online, Dylan Bailey is online, and myself, Daniel Collins. Committee member Kevin Antonitis sends his regrets this evening. Staff members present are Michaela Bray, intermediate planner, who is online. Manny Singh, a planner, is online. Wing Pu is the technical support specialist to my left and uh directly beside me is Delhara Abby Wardina, 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 electronics are to be in silent mode during our committee meeting. The purpose of the application and the relative correspondence will be heard which will uh which following the applicant will be given the opportunity to address the application. Any person concerned with the application will then be given the 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 ma mailed uh 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 Abbyward, the secretary treasurer, at coa grimsby.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 subsection 17 is completed 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. Each participant will be provided five minutes to speak. Each participant may only speak once. If you hear your comments 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 pecuniary interest with respect to the applications that are before us this evening? I see none. We will now consider uh the adoption of the agenda. Would someone please make a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Fay. Thank you. And that's seconded by Adam. Thank you. I will put that to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. I see no one opposed. That is carried. The agenda is adopted. Are there any requests for a withdrawal or adjournment? >> No, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Have the committee members had the opportunity to review the minutes from August 18, 2026. Are there any questions or concerns about the minutes? No, I see none. Um, can I have a mover and a seconder to approve the minutes? Adam, you going to move it? Thank you. And second, Fay. And we'll put it to a vote. All in favor, raise your hand. I see no one opposed. The minutes are carried. For this evening tonight, we have two applications before us. We'll get right into it. Uh the first application is A0926 for 306 Main Street East. and I will turn it over to the secretary treasurer to present the application. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the purpose of this application is to legalize the wood acoustic privacy fence that has already been constructed by the home builder. The variances requested uh to permit an existing fence with a setback of 0.51 m um 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. This is 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 and these are the agencies that have provided comments and I will summarize those comments for you now. Planning staff have no objection 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 bylaw are 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 commence. NPCA and NEC have no objections and Grimsby Power has no reservations or comments. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the agent or applicant here this evening? >> Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. I'm the uh agent for the owner. My name is Enzo Bertuchi and I'm the uh land development director at Brand Haven Homes. We are the home builder who built the home and the fence. >> Okay. If you could just state your address as well for the record and then uh if you want to elaborate on uh the need for the variance that would be appreciated. >> My home address is 1277 Robson Crescent Milton Ontario L as in Larry 9 T as in Tom 6 N as in Nancy 5. I can uh I can provide a brief history. Um uh I'm satisfied actually with the report and the recommendation from staff, but the history of of what happened with this fence. Uh originally we were going to the fence was intended to be built as per the approved landscape plans um by the municipality that had the fence respecting the current setbacks in place. Um through working with this design, we had approached the uh adjacent resident who was living already at 304 Main Street. um he has a privacy fence already erected that is on his property but essentially is adjacent to where the backyard of this lot uh one would be. We approached this individual and asked him if he'd be willing to have us upgrade his privacy fence to a noise to an acoustic fence so that we could then finish the his fence as the acoustic and do the return. At the same time when we did the return for lot one, we were going to make it bigger so they had a more uh useful backyard. And our intent was to come in for minor variance to do all that. As we worked through the process, we got the designs um signed off at least uh visually. Nothing was submitted. Um and then the city had said to the previous resident at 304 Main Street that they would require an easement on their land over his fence to ensure that it always remained acoustic. So for protection of the city, they wanted to make sure that the homeowner at 304 later on didn't take the fence down because it's complete on his property. He would have the right to um they wanted to protect that. When the homeowner was made aware of this condition, he decided he didn't want to participate any longer. Didn't want to have that restriction on his land. Um so we we abandoned that plan. But unfortunately when the fence got built, the landscape contractor, fence contractor used the plans that showed the setback encroaching onto the what's been approved. That was the fence that was constructed. Once we realized this mistake, because obviously the town bylaw advised us, we approached the the homeowner and asked them, um, we have two options here. we have to either remove the fence and build it according to the setbacks in place or we can seek a minor variance on your behalf and see if the municipality would approve that. This way you can keep the fence in its current location and enjoy a bit more of a backyard space. The uh homeowner agreed that they prefer to do that and that's why we made the application and we also spoke with staff in advance asking them if this is something that they could support. They advised us that they would based on everything that was in front of them. So, we made the application and um here we are. And my understanding was this item was originally supposed to be in August. Unfortunately, I wasn't available that night. Um and I guess there were some questions and that's why it got deferred to this evening. So, I'm here to hopefully answer anyone's questions. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um and now I'm just going to turn it over to the committee if there's any questions. Yeah, go ahead Dylan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. through you. Can I just get some clarification on on what um Mr. Beruchi has said versus the email that was sent to the committee and others um earlier today. Um, I guess I was a bit confused by the email cuz it I know the staff report has supported this, but the email that we received made it sound to me and I think I'm just not understanding it correctly that it needed to go back to where it was supposed to be. So, I'm not understanding. >> Okay, I'm just going to turn this to Michaela. Your hand is up if you want to take that question, please. >> Uh, yeah. Good morning or good evening everybody. Um yeah I can kind of provide some clarification on that. Um uh speaking through the chair. So the email that was sent out um earlier was kind of an initial review of the fence I think in 2021 and kind of the background of that email was saying that um as constructed or as proposed it didn't meet zoning. Um so that's all it was. it didn't meet the 4 and 1/2 m um setback from the street line that was required. Um and it essentially said because it doesn't meet that like they they can't build it that way but um they would have to apply for a variance. Um and then through the variance uh reviewed it against uh that's appropriate. So uh that initial email um it wasn't in the context of a variance. it was just stating that as um proposed at the time it just didn't meet zoning and then the the way to uh rectify that is to go through the minor variance process with the is which is what the applicant has uh done. >> Thank thank you uh Dylan is that uh suffice you want to keep Yeah, go ahead Dylan. >> Yeah. No, thank you for the clarification. So that that does provide some assistance. I guess that I just I guess I just really need to be clear. So through all of this, this was clear. This was a mistake that was made between Brand Haven and their fence contractor. Is that is that really sort of how this sort of you know kind of >> Yeah, there there was two sets of plan. Yes, sorry. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee member. There's two sets of plans that we had for this fence. the one that respected the 4 and a half meters which was the original plan. And then once we had done some investigations to see if we could use the neighbors existing privacy fence, upgraded to an acoustic, and then have the return on this lot fence, we made it extend further so they could have a bigger backyard. Understanding we'd have to go for a minor variance for everything at that time. Uh the the neighbors upgraded fence and this one and that was the plan. when the neighbor decided that they didn't want to have the restriction on their property at 304, then we abandoned that. But unfortunately, the set of plans that the landscape contractor had were those ones and that's what they had built off it. So, it was a mistake as to why it was built the way it was, we wouldn't have gone ahead and built it if if we didn't have an approval in place. Uh, and it was only once the bylaw officers brought it to our attention that we realized the mistake had happened. So, just so I'm clear, so they the fence contractors built the wooden non- acoustic fence to start. >> No, no, sorry. The acoustic fence, they built what's there there. The the neighbors at 304, we didn't touch his fence after once he decided they want to participate. We left his fence and we built actually an acoustic on our on our lot one's property. So, there's two fences side by side there on the back end. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sure. >> Yep. Thank you. Uh Adam, your hand is up. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to planning. Um I just wondering about if uh Michaela can clarify the the drawing that was presented for lot one in in that drawing was the fence in conformity with the setback or because I'm just I don't know. I'm trying to determine if there was two versions or three versions going around. >> I'm sorry. through the chair. Adam member Mo said, "Are you referring to the plan that was sent this afternoon >> that was the approved landscape plan as part of the subdivision?" >> Um, Dar, do you have that available? >> Yes. Do you want me to put it up? >> Sure. >> Okay. Just give me a moment. Uh thank you. Um so there isn't a measurement from the street line which is kind of like um if you follow that dark line across the street all the way along. Um there isn't a measurement from that line to where the fence is. So, um I can't confirm it right now, but it it is in a different area than what's being proposed um as uh subject of this minor variance. Um Enzo, are are you able to confirm that? Um it is a a previous drawing. >> Yeah, from what I can tell, this does look like one of the previous drawings. >> Um I think the fence that was built is slightly different than what we're seeing here. especially the the return it's it's not in line with the back wall there. So it's it slightly varies from this but it it's close to this one in the sense that it is with this one on the drawing you see here and what was constructed is encroaching within that 4 and a half meters in both cases. >> Okay, thank you. Um actually just a second question to the agent. Um, have they spoken uh recently to the owner at 304? Cuz at the the last meeting, he brought up safety concerns about backing out. >> No, I I have not spoken to the uh uh owner of 304. Uh it's been a while now since we we realized we weren't going to be using his fence for for the acoustic purposes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Adam. Um any other questions from the committee before I get to the public? No, I see none. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to this application? Uh, I see Eric. Adam, you have your hand up and then I'm going to go to Eric. >> Yeah, I think Dylan had his hand up, uh, physical hand, and he didn't catch it there. >> Oh, sorry, Dylan. Go ahead. >> Yeah, sorry. I was, um, absent for the previous meeting. Sorry. Could someone just give me a quick update on the safety concern that was raised at the time? >> Well, well, before we do that, Dylan, I I wonder if the um someone had their hand up and I I'm curious if that is the neighbor that brought up the concern, >> so I'll Okay, if that's okay, I'll let them speak. >> Uh go ahead. Go ahead, Eric. >> Hi. Uh good evening. So, I'm Eric Husby. I'm the resident at 304 Main Street East. Um the issue I raised last time, I I'm not opposed to the fence, but I did raise concerns about the proximity of the fence to the sidewalk as it extends towards the sidewalk. Um I've had issues with um you know, delivery people uh you know, trying to back out of my driveway and because it's so close, we just don't see the kids coming down the street, you know, on a scooter or on a bike. Um, and that's the concern I had uh with people backing out of the driveway. Uh, I mentioned last time that my wife and I deliberately uh back into uh uh the driveway so that we can pull forward when we exit the driveway. So, my concern was more about safety and the kids and people walking their dogs. Like that fence is really close to the sidewalk so that you're there's no line of sight if you're trying to back out of the driveway. So, that was my concern. Uh the fence itself, the height and so forth, I I have no issue with that. Uh my issue is with uh with safety for for the kids and people walking dogs and stuff. I' I've had situations where uh even this week some kid on a scooter uh you know, one of those kick scooters was way ahead of their parents and uh came across uh anybody trying to exit the driveway is looking for traffic both ways and and there's no line of sight to who's coming down the sidewalk. So I just wanted the the town to or the city to um to evaluate it from a safety standpoint. Um that that was my only concern. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, and thank you for coming again. Uh, go ahead, Dylan. >> Yeah. So, based on from what I just heard from the from the owner of 304, do we have comment from staff as to safety concerns or from the builder as to how this can be rectified? This is a concern to me. >> Uh, I'm first going to go to staff. Michaela, um was uh I it was in this the report, but can you just speak to that part of the report um of of um the the the line of sight and how that was considered for this please? >> Yep. uh through the chair both um planning staff and our development engineering to like our public work staff have visited the site and kind of from observing it it appeared that uh one that the the road the driving surface is far enough away. Um so that wasn't of concern and that that is uh one of the things we evaluated um from like active traffic lanes that wasn't a concern. Um the sidewalk um it is something that we consider um a safety concern. Um as uh Mr. Husby mentioned um a lot of kids um on bikes and scooters uh we felt that there was space um to see visually um as the sidewalk does jog. Um, so that was staff's opinion from looking at the fence um, in relation to the driveway um, and the context of the area. >> Okay. Thank you. So, if I uh, understand, traffic was not an issue as far as sight lines. The sidewalk was a concern, but because it jogs, the concern was dissipated. the the jog uh in our opinion assists with some of the visual obstruction that it cause. >> I see. >> Okay. Any comments from the committee? Yeah, go ahead, Dylan. >> Sorry, I just I'd like to comment from the builder, please. Yeah, the comment I would have based on that is before we made the application for the minor variance, we did speak with engineering staff to ensure that they were comfortable with the safety of it. Obviously, we weren't going to make an application that we felt staff couldn't support. We were given the verbal uh response that they had reviewed it because the fence was constructed already. They were comfortable because of the jog in the sidewalk that safety concerns were met and if we would make the application based on its current location, they could support it. So that's how we proceeded. >> Go ahead, Dylan. >> Sorry, not to sort of kick the issue, but um to death, but since this is in front of us now, and the homeowner, I think, has raised a valid point that in practice this is a concern. You know, this is a fairly high density neighborhood. obviously that there are families in this area. You know, I would like to see some proposed remedy before this is sort of, you know, legal and binding and then we hear of some kind of horrific accident that happens that, you know, by the homeowner of 304. Perhaps it's outside of our purview as the committee to worry about community safety, but you know, isn't that everyone's job? So, >> I I I I just it it I just think it's something we need to carefully consider. Thank you. >> Uh FA's hand was up first. Go ahead, Fay. >> Um through you, chair. Um I agree with Dylan's comments and here's my input for what it's worth. I did a site visit. I noted the fence and the placement of the fence and um I measured out sort of how far he has to pull out and then I did a little drive around as I usually do and I then in pulling into my own driveway and I understand what the owner at 304 is is talking about. I feel that myself in my driveway um when I pull into my driveway, I don't have a fence that blocks my view, but there are parked cars. So, it's it's kind of here or there with the way Grimby is growing and all our subdivisions. Everybody has more than one car. It's just a matter of um congestion. And I certainly understand the safety the safety references and I think I think the fence to me meets what it should meet and it's doing for the resident of 306 what it should do. A buffer from the noise and a buffer from the street. But then again, we all have to sort of live with this congestion we've grown. And um I know when I pull out of my driveway, I have four boys who are 8 years old and they're driving up and down my street, I'm very cautious. So I my point is when I looked at this fence at first I thought, yeah, I can see the problem here. But then when I also saw it all over Grimby, we can't take care of every house that's in Grimby. Um and it's just the way it is. I have to deal with it. And I'm sure if we all thought of it, how we pull out of our driveways, it's just a safety factor. And I think the fence um to me, I can I can support this fence being where it is because it's not I don't think it's making a bigger safety factor. That is a busy road and there could be there are no parked cars to can deal with to deal with, which is great, but if it's not a fence, it's going to be a parked car or it's going to be someone's work vehicle. So in my mind, um the fence is actually doing what it should do for the resident and you know I I totally see everybody's point of view, but I also think that the fence I agree with the planning department and I think the fence does meet the four tests. >> Okay, thank you for your comments. Michaela, you had your hand up first. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, we did have some uh kind of screen clippings from Google Maps. Perhaps we could put those up just to um all look at them together and then uh ultimately it will be up to the committee to make their decision. But I think it would just be worth um just reviewing the images one last time before a decision is made. >> Okay. Uh Delhara is gonna pull those up for us. >> Yep. Thank you. And while she does that, um Adam, go ahead. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, I do share the the concerns of the the safety and um especially when we have an email from 2021 that basically says that, you know, this may cause visibility issues for the resident 304 and here we have the resident from 304 uh basically saying yes, this basically it is this problem has materialized. So, I mean, if there was no home beside it, I wouldn't be an issue, but it's just the fact the driveway is right there. It's it's it's it has me conflict. >> Thank you. Okay, we've got some pictures for review. Thanks, Delhar. I'll just um yeah, summarize just from this angle. planning staff felt that there was um sufficient uh visual uh lack of visual obstruction. Um so that was one of the angles we considered. Um and then I believe there was another angle from the other side which has less of an impact but yeah we felt that there was sufficient space um visually while backing out from the driveway but um again Mr. her husband does it in in practice every day. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments from the public? >> No, I see none. Okay. Um any more from the committee if everybody's kind of made their stance as what they see? where I where I'm struggling right now is I I understand the safety issues, but to deny it, I don't think it needs to go 4.5 or 4 meters back. Um, and so maybe to staff, is there a middle ground? Is there a I don't want to kick this down even another month um because it'd be nice to deal with it, but what would happen like is there is there an option to not have the fence where it is, but give like kind of the best of both worlds for both parties where we still maintain somewhat of um an outdoor amenity for the current homeowners and we can appease a safer um look um for the homeowner that brought up the concerns as far as the sidewalk. I'm putting I'm putting you on the spot there, Michaela. >> That's okay. >> I mean, the commit the committee's uh has the ability to impose whatever uh conditions they want on a minor variance. Um just being cognizant that conditions to move the fence also include essentially like the demolition of a lot of the fence um and rebuilding of the fence, but it is up to the committee to impose the conditions that they deem appropriate on a minor variance. >> Right. So, you know, it's it's saying here um 0.51 meters from the street line and we just change that number >> if that's a condition that the committee would like to impose. >> Right. So, we change. Yeah. I don't know. It gets messy, I think. Go ahead. Uh Adam. >> Yeah. Thank you for Mr. Chair. um to the agent. I'm just wondering your thoughts of the proposal. Obviously, you would like the variance to pass as applied for, but um what's your sort of feeling about a middle ground? >> Um I mean, first I'm going to say I'm not an expert on visual safety provisions of what's allowed, what's not. I I rely on uh the engineering staff both at the city and at the region who reviewed this pretty comprehensively. Um you could see by the jog and I think the images that Michaela showed shows there's quite a bit of extension past the neighbor's driveway before the sidewalk crosses his property. So if someone is careful when they're coming out of there, obviously you you can visually see someone coming down. Um would setting the fence back a bit help? I'm I'm sure it would. I I don't see how it wouldn't if there was no fence. It would be completely clear. I mean, it's it's it's obvious. Um, so I again, our view on it is the neighbor approach of the home. And we were because we made the mistake, we were happy to rip out the fence and build it back to where it should have been originally, uh, if that's what the resident was happy with the homeowner. When we asked them specifically, do you do you enjoy having the bigger backyard? Would you want it to go back so we don't go to minor variance? And again, we paid for all the fees. So, the only burden to the homeowner here is obviously time and if this doesn't go through having to lose their backyard that they currently have now. Um, and we're happy to do either one to accommodate, you know, all parties. But we felt that this solution moving forward made the most sense after speaking with staff, after speaking with the resident at uh 306 that um this is what everyone uh preferred and it met the safety criteria. So for us obviously our intent would be to leave it where it is but again we're in the hands of committee. >> Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead Fay. >> Um through you chair I have a I have a question. I guess it's to um the planning department. When the fence was built and it's forward more than it should be. There's another fence beside it. What's the difference of the lengths of the two fence? Because if we move this fence back at 3006, isn't there a fence on 304 that's still there? >> Uh I'm I'm through the chair. I'm not aware of the exact numbers. I don't know if Enzo was able to elaborate on that. >> I wonder if Eric can I saw him raise his hand. Go ahead, Eric. >> Yeah, thank you. So, I I do have a fence um uh that extends from the the side property u but it doesn't go nearly down that far and I'm not looking to cause any difficulty for my neighbor um that has a little bit larger backyard than they expected. Um so I would say some middle ground would be good. Um the the thing I find curious is that little jog in the sidewalk that we're talking about actually makes the whole thing worse. If the sidewalk was going straight through, I would have a much better line of sight. So, some of this for some reason with the the the the town decided they wanted the sidewalk pulled in. That actually made the whole thing worse. Um the currently there's about a panel and a half and I think the panels might be 8 ft or something. Um I I don't think like I'm I think there is some middle ground here. I'm just a little bit nervous and it by the way it's not necessarily for me. it's for the the Amazon driver, the pizza delivery guy, you know, some friends that come over. Uh, you know, they all back out of the driveway. Uh, that that's where my concern lies from a safety standpoint. Um, there's plent there's plenty of room. The fence that I have that extends partway down the driveway uh doesn't come nearly close to the end of the uh 306 fence. >> Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I see what you mean. Um, Eric, about the jog. Uh to be honest, if it were my kids, they would cut through your driveway. Um as they went down that sidewalk, um I had to teach them to go around. Um but that's not here or there. It looks It looks to me from the pictures I have from the site, you're Yeah. panel and a half. Um so if a panel is um 8 ft, that's 2.4 m. Is that right? Yeah. So 2.4 m. So if um call it 2.5 then then we're doing a set back of 3 m from the sidewalk and that would that would bring it back kind of in a middle ground as far as I'm concerned. So the the current homeowners would um they would have their fence moved in 8 ft. Now I I'm just going to pitch that to the committee. uh do we change the the or add a condition that this is acceptable to us? Um can we just bounce that idea around or if there's any other ideas? FY, your hand is up. Go ahead. >> Um after considering both of these, I'm I'm still good with the fence being where it is. I could make a motion towards that. Um, I don't know what the rest of my committee wants to do, >> but as I said before, when I drove around and I was actually at another property on Livingston, now that I think of it, and pulling out, it's just a fact of life in this day and age. Unfortunately, I hate I hate to have to think that way, but we have to feel that um, you know, the planning department has has said it meets the four tests. I looked at it. I agree, but I'll let my committee voice their opinions as well. >> Well, if there's no further further discussion, if you want to make a motion, you Yeah, you can do that. >> Okay. So, let it be resolved that minor variance application A09-26 for 306 Main Street East to permit an existing fence with a setback of 0.51 m from the street line Main Street East, whereas the minimum setback of 4.5 m is required according to section 4.9 of the zoning bylaw 1445 as amended and to permit an existing fence that is 2.7 m in height. height. Whereas a maximum fence height of 2 m is permitted according to section 4.36 and zoning bylaw 1445 as amended be approved. >> Okay. Um approved without condition without conditions. Yeah, >> without conditions. >> Okay. Um so it's uh on the floor is it do I have a seconder? >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. Just just a clarification. The the fence height is 2.07 m. Correct. Not 2.7 m. >> Correct. Yeah. 2.07. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um Oh. Any further discussion on the motion? No. Do I have a seconder? >> Okay. I don't have a seconder. So, that motion is uh defeated. >> Uh go ahead, Adam. >> Yeah. Thank you. Three, Mr. chair. Um, like I say, I hate to kick the can down the road a little more, but um I'm wondering if there could be any um development, pardon the pun, between uh the the owner at 304 and the builder um in terms of what might work as a compromise. You know, sort of uh put them together and see what they can come up with. Well, I think planning staff has to be involved as well um with that. Um and you know, I I'm not a planner. I'm I'm definitely not an expert in all that. Uh I'm not comfortable with where the fence is right now. Um I agree with the the homeowner that was kind of sharing their concerns. Um, but then again, I'm not sold on the idea of calling it 3 mters because in my mind it could just be a 45 degree cut in the fence just just to open up that viewing point. But then I'm not an expert. I don't know what's the angle to for viewing. Is it 45°? Is it you know um and so then most of the fence can stay as is, but then a section gets opened up um for viewing for uh for safety. Go ahead, Adam. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, that's my thought, too. I just tried to do the minimal amount possible to um ensure safety. I mean, we don't have to move the whole fence, but um as you said, like a corner cut, but I mean, maybe this would be something that involves public works. I'm not sure if maybe planning can comment on that just in terms of the view angles or the view triangle or whatever. Yeah, thank you. It it probably would be uh wise to include public works on it um and have them do an evaluation as well um as they did review the the current fence. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, so do Oh, go ahead, Fay. through your chair. Can you just elaborate what you mean by a 45 degree cut? Do you mean the fence comes along straight and angles this way? >> Yeah. Yeah. Just angles uh towards uh So, so you know how there's the two fences? >> Yeah. >> Um so it almost angles back towards that second fence. >> Okay. >> And it's only uh a corner of their backyard they're going to lose. And then that's going to open up uh a viewing portal say for uh anyone in the driveway. Uh Dylan, your hand is up. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I I'm you know, I'm happy to support the deferral um to allow for town staff, whatever unit, whatever departments that might be, as well as the the builder and the owner at 304 to have a discussion. Um I don't want to presume sort of you know angling versus removing. I think we need to either have some options or have put forward to us what you know would make this better given the context of our discussion. Um so I would support a you know a a deferral to a future meeting. Um but before I guess we do that I just would like to see if there's any if the builder has any further comment. Um just again for the context of this discussion >> you do uh Mr. Chair to the committee member um in all fairness I don't I don't feel like I have the ability to speak on behalf of the homeowner who is the owner of the land as a result to the compromise because the position was we were coming forward to represent the existing location. So I I wouldn't feel comfortable giving an opinion on you know what they can live with or what they're satisfied with. That would be something we'd want to speak to the homeowner at um 306 directly. >> Yeah. Okay. I agree with that. Then uh I also support a deferral. All parties can get together because if we if we vote through uh this I I have a feeling it will be refused um if we do this as is. So if we defer it, maybe we can come back to the drawing table um and uh uh at a future meeting and and look at a compromise. Uh Adam, did you want to comment further on that? No, I'm good. Actually, you're you addressed my point. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, does someone want to make a motion then? >> Dylan, go ahead. This may need to be wordsmith, but you know, so moved that this application be deferred indefinitely to a future meeting of the uh committee of adjustment after discussions between the homeowners of 304 Main Street and 306 Main Street along with the appropriate divisions of um Town of Grimby staff to provide comment and recommendation going forward within with the within the context of our discussion tonight. Um especially um and obviously the safety concerns that have been raised. >> Okay. Um so you're resolving that uh the minor variants be deferred. Um yeah to a future meeting. Is that is that okay? Is it okay if I simplify it like that? Um, and then the the parties know that when they come back kind of where the we've had this experience of of where we stand. >> Sorry, I don't understand, Mr. Chair. >> Uh, no, just because the resolution that you just kind of dictated um is it were you just kind of elaborating on your reasons or do you want that included in the decision? >> No, that's sort of my justification for for my reasons. I mean, if we really sort of want to keep it to brass tax, I so move that this application be um be deferred indefinitely. >> Okay. So, be >> that way that way that way it can come back next month, 3 months from now. >> Okay. >> Whenever whenever whenever it's ready. So, >> okay. >> So, I so move that this application be deferred indefinitely. >> Okay. Sounds good. Do we have a seconder on that, Adam? Thank you. Okay. Let's vote. All in favor of the deferral, raise your hand. Any opposed? I see one. Uh just note that Fay is opposed to that and the three are um in support. So that is carried. So this will be deferred to a future uh meeting. The next application we have is A1726 for 140 Main Street East. and I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer for a presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the purpose of this application is to facilitate the second office parking space to be a tandem parking space. The variance requested is to permit a tandem parking space for an office use whereas required parking spaces shall have adequate access from a street to permit ingress and eress of a motor vehicle by means of driveways, aisles, maneuvering areas or similar areas. No part of which access except in the case of tandem parking in a driveway to a dwelling unit is to be used for the temporary parking or storage of any motor vehicle. 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. I will summarize those comments for you now. Planning staff recommend approval of minor variance application A1726 subject to the following conditions. The parking spaces be paved clearly demarcated and separated for each use through a combination of signage and or pavement markings. Residential parking spaces are to be for residential use only and commercial parking spaces are to be for commercial use only. Signage and or pavement markings are to clearly indicate that tandem parking is permitted. The t the maximum gross flow area of commercial use is limited to 56 square meters. The heritage planning department uh had this to say. While 140 Main Street East is on the municipal heritage register, the proposed works do not include any demolition of the structure. So therefore they have no um objections. Development engineering has reviewed the application and has no commence objections to the proposed minor variance. The region has no comments. NPCA had this to say. There are no NPCA regulated features located at this address at this time. As such the NPC offers no objections to the proposed development. The Niagara Escarment Commission had this to say. 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. Provided the town is satisfied that the application meets the official plan policies, NEC staff do not anticipate any policy conflicts with parts 1.7 or two of the NEP and offer no objections. Grimsby Power has no reservations or comments. Back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is the agent or applicant here and would you be uh able to speak to the application? >> Hello everyone. Uh I'm a design engineer uh to do this project and the owner uh is not attending this uh meeting. >> Okay. Could you just state your name and address for the record, please? Uh my name is a way Yang Kai and design engineer >> and your address >> uh 462 East Bridge Boulevard in Waterloo Ontario. >> Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything you would like to add to the uh comments that were made or uh speak to the reasons that for the application? Uh yeah, the owner uh would like to uh have a office like a unit for for for the other person. So uh that's the office areas only 56 square meters but according to the building by law no uh zoning by law uh two uh parking spaces are required but uh based on the site condition it's only one uh one parking space allowed and we need two parking spaces for the office. So we like to have a tandem parking space for for the office. So that's only only the changes we would like to >> Okay. Thank you. Um is there any questions from the committee? >> No. No. I see none. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to this application? I see I see none. Uh, so do we have uh a a motion? Yeah. Go ahead, Dylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, be it resolved that minor variance application A17-26 for 140 Main Street East to permit a tandem parking space for an office use. Whereas required parking spaces shall have adequate access from a street to permit ingress and egress of a motor vehicle by means of driveways, aisles, maneuvering areas, or similar areas. No part of which access except in the case of tandem parking in a driveway to a dwelling unit is to be used for the temporary parking or storage of any motor vehicle according to section 5.11a in zoning bylaw 14-45 as amended be approved as it meets the four tests with the three conditions as previously stated. >> Okay, thank you. Do we have a seconder on that? Adam, thank you. Uh let's vote for this. Uh all in favor raise your hand or say I. Any opposed? I see one opposed. Uh and that is carried. So just note that there is 20-day appeal period before um it's legal and binding. Um but uh yeah, it's been carried. >> The next meeting for the committee of adjustment will be held on November 17th, 2026. Uh this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Recording stopped.