The Committee of Adjustment met to consider a minor variance application for a commercial property at 42 Ontario Street, where an existing parking lot has been operating “in this manner for over a decade,” according to property owner Chris Nighton. The committee approved five variances related to setbacks, driveway width and parking supply, and it amended staff’s recommended conditions by removing a requirement for a 2-metre privacy fence after both the applicant and the adjacent neighbour objected.

The committee also heard a property standards appeal for 295 Park Road. The appellant, Shamir Khan, alleged the order was “an isolated targeted attack against myself and my family,” but the committee confirmed the order requiring him to secure a shed door and board up a chicken coop, extending the compliance deadline to May 30, 2026.

Topics Discussed

42 Ontario Street Parking Lot Legalization

The committee considered an application to legalize an existing parking lot at 42 Ontario Street. Nighton told the committee the lot “has been used in this manner for over a decade,” including several years before he owned it.

The applicant sought five variances, including reduced setbacks (1.66 m instead of 3 m abutting residential; 0.15 m instead of 6 m abutting Ontario Street), a narrower entrance (6.4 m instead of 7.5–10.5 m), and 10 parking spaces instead of 11 required. One speaker noted the site already provides “two more spots than the requirement in the bylaw,” but that “the location and the dimension of those spots… [is] somewhat off the bylaw in certain circumstances.”

The committee approved the variances, finding they met the four tests.

Privacy Fence Dispute

A key issue was planning staff’s proposed condition requiring a 2-metre privacy fence along the east property line. Walter Basik, the town’s manager of community planning, said the fence was intended to provide “a visual barrier between the rear yard amenity area of the neighboring residential use and the commercial parking lot,” calling it “a standard requirement in any interface between a commercial parking lot and a residential property.” Basik added the intent was not only for current occupants but “for future owners and tenants… as well the protection from the intrusion or visual intrusion from the commercial parking lot.”

The adjacent neighbour objected in writing, saying they did “not wish to have the proposed fence erected,” arguing the driveway is “already tight” and tenants could hit the fence “or worse, the house with their cars.” The neighbour’s position was also summarized during the hearing as: “I definitely do not want to do that and change anything at all at all.”

Committee discussion focused on whether the fence was necessary given the site’s long-standing operation. One member said they would “tend to agree with the applicant,” adding: “It’s not broke, don’t fix it. Put the bollards in, but leave the fence alone.” The committee ultimately removed the fence requirement while keeping the bumper block condition.

Property Standards Enforcement Allegations (295 Park Road)

Shamir Khan appealed a property standards order requiring him to secure a shed door and board up a chicken coop. Khan told the committee: “there’s a very big problem here and um this is an isolated targeted um against myself and my family and like I said I have all the evidence and the facts to prove it.” He also said the appeal process was costly, stating: “I had to pay $430 for my voice to be heard today.”

Municipal Law Enforcement Officer and Property Standards Officer Quinn Ma cited the bylaw rationale: “The owner of a vacant building shall board up the vacant building to the satisfaction of the property standards officer covering all openings with plywood… This section exists for health and safety reasons to deter trespassers and animals from getting into these buildings.”

Another staff member described their site visit and characterized the required work as limited: “The secure door, there are two minor little things the town is asking for. And I think during the next month till May 30th, they should be able to get done.” The committee confirmed the order and extended the deadline to May 30, 2026.

Procedural Concerns Over Late Document Submission

Khan submitted a large package of materials shortly before the meeting. Committee members raised concerns about the volume and timing. One member said: “it’s a bit much to sort of assume that I’m going to read 121 pages in the approximately 15 to 20 minutes before a meeting.”

A motion to postpone was discussed, but the committee proceeded with the hearing and ultimately ruled on the order.

Motions

Passed: - Motion to adopt the agenda (moved by Antonitis, seconded by Adam) - Motion to approve Application A0326 for 42 Ontario Street with modified conditions: all five variances approved; bumper blocks to be installed along parking spaces 4–10 on east property line; privacy fence requirement removed - Motion to confirm Property Standards Order #2026-035 for 295 Park Road with compliance deadline extended to May 30, 2026

Rejected: - Initial motion regarding Application A0326 (details not specified in transcript)

Attendees

Committee of Adjustment Members Present: - Daniel Collins (Chair) - Kevin Antonitis - Fay Billing - Adam Mers Head (online) - Dylan Bailey (online)

Staff Present: - Walter Basik (Manager of Community Planning) - Henry Boyce (Supervisor of Municipal Law Enforcement) - Quinn Ma (Municipal Law Enforcement Officer and Property Standards Officer) - Delhara Abby Wardina (Secretary Treasurer)