Transcript: Parking Lot Variances Approved - Committee of Adjustment - April 21, 2026 | Summary 457

Good evening everybody. Um, I'm going to call this meeting to order for April 21st to 2026. The committee members in attendance this evening are Kevin Antonitis, uh, FA Billing to my side, uh, Adam Mers Head and Dylan Bailey are both online, and I am Daniel Collins. Staff members this evening are Walter Basik, the manager of community planning, uh Henry Boyce, the supervisor of municipal law enforcement, Quinn Ma, the parking enforcement officer, and Delhara Abby Wardina, the secretary treasurer. This meeting will be livereamed. Uh 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 the procedures and then we're going to do just some committee business and then we will get into the uh files we have this evening. Uh the purpose uh so an overview of meeting meeting procedures for the committee of adjustment. the purpose of the application and relative correspondence will be heard following which the applicant will be given the opportunity to address the application. Any person concerned with the application will then be given an opportunity to speak. At the conclusion of the discussion, the committee will render a decision and advise of any applicable conditions. Copies of 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 Abbyward, the secretary treasurer at cagrimby.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, the OOLT, within 20 days of the date of giving of notice under subsection 17 um um for completed uh 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 the chair. Each participant will be provided five minutes to speak. Each participant may only speak uh once. If you hear your comments uh 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 uh against 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 the subject that are subject to the applications. Uh do any members of the committee have a pecuniary interest with respect to the application uh that is before us this evening? Okay. I see none. We will now consider the adoption of the agenda. Would someone please make a motion to adop adop sorry adopt the agenda as presented? Okay, I see uh moved by member Antonitis and seconded by uh Adam. Thank you. Are there any requests for withdrawal or adjournment? No. Thank you. Have committee members had the opportunity to review the minutes from March 17, 2026? Are there any questions or comments about the minutes? Uh, Adam, go ahead. Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, did we vote on the motion to adopt? Oh, yeah. Good call. So, it's been uh Thank you for that. Um, it's been uh let's see here. Yeah, Kevin and Adam. Okay, we'll put that to a vote. Uh, all in uh favor, raise your hand or say I. I see none in opposition. So, that is carried. Thank you for that, Adam. Mr. Chair, if I could I'm also going to make related to that after the minutes, I'm going to make a motion um that we uh resend the position I resin the position of vice chair as we discussed and that we appoint member uh Billing as vice chair instead of me to give her an opportunity to to do that. So, okay. So, you're going to you're going to move that. Do we have a seconder on that? If you caught that. Yeah. Okay, we got that. So Adam and let's vote on that one. Uh so uh all in favor raise your hand or say I. I see none opposed and that includes you. Perfect. Very good. Okay. So the minutes will be uh approved as amended. Um and now can I have a mover and a seconder for the minutes? Uh the amended minutes. Adam, I see your hand up. Thank you. And second, uh, Fay. And we'll put that to a vote. All in favor, uh, raise your hand or say I. I see no one opposed. That is also carried. Thank you. Tonight we have one application before us. The application number um is going to be A0327 for42 Ontario Street and I'll turn it to the secretary treasurer to present the application via PowerPoint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. So, the purpose of this application is to legalize the existing parking lot layout for an office use and to facilitate adjusting the dimensions of an existing parking um space to accessible standards. The variances requested are as follows. To permit an exterior sideyard setback of 1.6 6 m abuting a residential area whereas 3 m is required to permit a minimum setback to parking spaces of.15 m abuting Ontario street whereas 6 m is required to permit a parking lot within 0 m of a property line abuting a residential zone whereas 4 1/2 m is required to permit the width of an entrance or exit to a lot basically 6.4 m. Whereas the width of an entrance or exit to a lot be not less than 7 1/2 m nor more than 10 1/2 m measured along the street line. And finally to permit that the minimum number of parking spaces be 10 whereas the minimum number of parking spaces required is 11. And um this is an image of the site plan which was circulated along with the notice of hearing. Um this is an image of the neighborhood for context. These are the current conditions on site and these are the agencies that have um commented on the application. And I will summarize those comments for you now. Planning staff recommend approval with conditions for this application as the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature appropriate for the development or use of the land, building or structure and are considered to maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw and the official plan pursuant to subsection 451 of the planning act. The requested conditions are as follows. that a 2 m board privacy fence be constructed along parking spaces 4 to six to the of the east property line and uh that bumper blocks be installed along parking spaces 7 to 10 of the east property line. Heritage planning staff are supportive of the minor variances as the alterations on the site do not result in adverse impacts to the identified cultural heritage. Development engineering staff have no conditions or commence. Same with the region and the NPCA. Back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is the agent or there um the applicant here for this file? Yes, I'm here. And I also have uh Kevin Emerich as well uh of the architect um who assisted in um in all this with me. Um Okay. Here. Yeah, if I could just get you to um uh state your name and address for the record and then just kind of go into detail uh as to why you would like to have the variance uh requested. Yeah, absolutely. Uh first of all, my name is Chris Nighton. I'm at uh 57250 Road in Stony Creek, Ontario. Um I've owned this building uh for over a decade now. And I do want to defer to Kevin because he's much more uh capable of answering this, but when we purchased this and I did my due diligence obviously not the highest level possible because this kind of fell to the cracks where this has been used in this manner for over a decade and for that I've owned it and then also for several years before I owned it and there hasn't been any issues as well with that now with the uh the fencing issues that I got letters from the um from the abuing neighbors they are all on board they have absolutely zero interest in doing anything else to change that it would actually advert ly affect them and I've been had great relationships with both neighbors. The the neighbor on John to the to the east of the property. Uh they have changed over I believe they purchased in 2017. A gentleman named Kelly has been nothing but absolutely fantastic to work with. Um there hasn't been any issues whatsoever and I feel like uh this is kind of kind of thrust upon us when it's been like this for again over a decade and there's been absolutely zero issues with anybody. um that we've had any dealings with. And again, just I I had my office there for uh nine nineish years and it's been nothing but uh great with the the surrounding neighbors and the town itself. So, I think that's what I have, but Kevin, if if you wouldn't mind or if you'd like to um give your piece, I I'd be happy to hear from you as well if that's okay. And I'm gonna mute myself because I am in a hockey rink right now. Okay. Thank Thank you, Chris. And thank you, Kevin, as well. If you could state your name and address. Uh, thank you. Yeah, my name is Kevin Emer and I'm with Whitel Line Architects, uh, representing Chris and we're at 83 Ontario Street in St. Catherine's. So, I think it's well understood that the issue here is really one of parking uh, parking and the metrics of the parking related to the current zoning bylaws. I think it's important to note that the minimum amount of parking required in the zoning bylaw is accommodated here. In fact, two additional spots are accommodated here. The real issue at hand is really the metrics of the parking related to the current zoning bylaw, the dimensions and the location. I think zoning bylaws make a great deal of sense and could be conformed to 100% on new properties, new developments. However, modern zoning bylaw requirements related to parking sizes and parking setbacks don't necessarily work on old properties that have been previously developed prior to the advent of those bylaws. That's exactly what the case is here. This building dates back to 1875. It's very old. The property around it was developed for for its current configuration of parking for commercial use prior to Chris Nighton's ownership of it. It has resided that way and existed that way in harmony with his neighbors for well over a dozen years. Now, some of the metrics like um the setbacks of parking from neighbors in the current bylaw are not accommodated here, but it should be noted that these types of setbacks or lack thereof are exactly what happened in this neighborhood. Both of the neighbors on either side of this property have parking at a zero setback, which is the exact same scenario that has resided in this property for 10 or 12 years. Everybody understands these are conditions that exist. Everybody's been very happy with them and there have been no issues with it. So now as Chris looks to legitimize this property and make it formally a commercial property property the last by or the sort of the last step rather is to get the parking legitimized. We've gone through a process with the building department in which the building is now from a permit perspective, it's going to be deemed commercial in compliance with the building code. And the last piece of the puzzle is just to have this parking also uh approved as well. So that's essentially where we are at. And I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody might have about the specifics of it. Okay. Thank you very much. Um to that point, are there any questions from the committee? Yeah, I see Dylan. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To um Mr. Emer or Nighton, just so I'm clear. Um so you said that the the the building, you know, will now be considered a commercial property. And so with that, there's these parking amendments that are needed. I just want to make sure that so you know while I understand that it's been a different configuration for a number of years you are um I get you you are willing to comply with with the with changes or you're saying that we should that that what's been proposed you object to. I just want to be clear on that point first. I'm not sure what specifically has been proposed. There are metrics in the bylaw for a certain number of spots. The existing property provides two more spots in the requirement in the bylaw. Uh it's just the location and the dimension of those spots that is subtly off of well subtly it's somewhat off the bylaw in c certain circumstances. It's marginally off in another. So the condition that's been in existence for plus 12 years is essentially what Chris is looking to maintain. Okay. So, so I'm just looking at what we're proposing in order to have changed with the accessible spot in the front and I think a a general reduction of of spots. So, the the spot in the front will absolutely be accommodated. It is on spec with barrierfree requirements. The reduction of spots is an interesting one. Um, to my understanding, the metric and the bylaw actually only requires 10. My understanding is there's some agreement in place which requires 11 but in fact what currently is provided there is 12. So the idea is that the two one or two additional spots can be used for snow piling in the winter. So the 10 required spots would always be accommodated on site without any impact on the surrounding properties. So the two additional spots one or two are meant for snow piling purposes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I guess and my and my second question is um I think Mr. Knight mentioned one of the conditions is um a fence I think along spots I can't remember if it's 2 to six or 7 to 10 but one of those um and I just was did I hear correctly that the neighbors and you are both objecting to said fence being built? Um, and I I'll let Chris speak to this, but what I can say is that the parking spots on the east side of of Mr. Night's property are on a zero setback, right against the neighbor's drive, which is also on a zero setback. The neighbor has expressed a desire not to have a fence there because his drive is rather narrow and it means that it'll be more difficult for him to open up a car on that drive when there's a fence right there. Am I correct in saying that, Chris? Yeah, you actually wouldn't you actually wouldn't be able to if you had a fence right there because it's so close to where the the uh the actual building is. It's a a duplex there. Um you wouldn't be able to open up the door. And then I said, "Well, what about the you know along the other towards the backyard for him?" He goes, "I I don't want that there. It's more it would be more of a pain for him than anything else." And I have a letter that should be in with the um with the application stating that from the um who actually very much opposed to I don't want it to have anything to do with fence. We've been here for um with the renters there for he's only again I believe since 2017 um 17 or 18 I going to have to look at that. Um but he's like I have no no desire to have any fence there whatsoever and I would actually appreciate it if we didn't. that is reflected in his in his letter. Okay. So, further to that then, so it would be so it would be the preference would then be to have the I think the term was ballards sort of put all along that that stretch instead of a combination of fence and ballards or pylons or can't remember the I'm talking to you. I can't read the report at the same time. The concrete blocks. Yeah. Yes. So that would be the preference all along that that east side then. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. That was again for for myself and for the neighbor as well. Okay. Thank you. Um I guess through you, Mr. chair, were we provided with um this neighbor letter with um you know in in what was shared with us or is there any is there anyone there to speak to that point because I don't believe I've received that. Um yeah through uh the chair. Uh sorry I think that was missed on the agenda. I apologize for that but the letter is there. Yes, I can put it up. Just give me a minute. Sorry. While uh um Delhara is pulling that up, I'm just going to ask Walter about the fence. Um, would you uh would you have any serious concerns about not having a fence there from a planning perspective? Yeah, thank you. Uh, thank you for the question. The the intent of the fence is to provide a visual barrier between the rear yard amenity area of the neighboring residential use and the commercial parking lot, which is a standard standard uh requirement in any uh interface between a commercial parking lot and a residential um residential property. Um I'm not sure who the letter is from. I don't recall if it's the owner or the tenant. I think there might be tenants there. So u and it's and the intent is not just to provide for the existing owner or tenants. It also for future owners and tenants of of the property as well the the protection from uh the intrusion or visual intrusion from the commercial parking lot to uh to the rear yard amenity area. So this is this is not uncommon for any uh commercial residential interface in in in town or anywhere else in in in the province. Okay. Thank you. And current and currently, if I could speak to that, there is a um there is a a chain link fence that's been there for some time and it's uh there's also a a garage of sorts. Yeah. And then Yeah. So, there's lattice back there as well, which again in the it does grow some stuff on there. Plus, there is the garage there as well. So, when I was talking to Kelly, the neighbor, um and even the neighbor from before never had any issues with it at all when when they sold it. Um there is a bit of a there is a visual um like concealing I don't know the word you use but concealing of it as is right now screening. There you go. Yeah. I I I think what's important to note on that east side is that the boundary of that property with Mr. Nighton's property is all driveway leading to a garage at the back of that neighbor's property. Yeah. Okay. at the back of the adjacent to Mr. Nighton's property. Okay. Thank you. That's good information. Um, any other questions from the committee? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, just kind of follow up to that. I guess um if we said if we didn't make it a condition, Walter, I guess the question is for you. If we don't make it a condition, I see that they're still going through site plan. Um, could they still be forced to put one in if it's not a condition through the site plan process or would that be something, well, the neighbors don't have an issue with it? We can just leave it off. I guess there's nothing preventing them from doing it later if they wanted to, right? Either side, either party. In other words, why force them if they're not asking for it? Like either side. Um, my question is, can you force them in the site plan process if we don't make it a condition to put a fence up? because you're they're going through site plan. I understand, right? So, can you still force them to? I I would agree with the applicant like if they're not asking for it, leave it off. It seem to seems to function. I'm just worried about snow removal and things like that in the winter. It'll be a disaster having a fence down a parking lot divided by a parking lot. Even bullards kind of worry me because the plow's going to hit it. They're going to be kicked all the skew. Um, I I think it just makes for better circulation in these tight little spots, these small commercial spots. So, I'm reluctant to make it a condition and let the owners, you know, resolve it and put one up later if they want. U, but I'm just wondering if staff's going to force them anyway through the site plan pro process. Yeah, thank you. Um, again, um, the as far as I understand, the property is up for sale and, uh, there will be a new property owner. um the uh and there will be tenants within the building. So it's my understanding that it will be a boondog that will be operating out of this site. So there will be different people coming and going within within the property. So it won't be the owner the current owner of the property that will be managing the site. Um in the future we can't require the owner to uh once everything's approved, building permits issued uh the municipalities out of it. So this is our only opportunity to do it. Um if uh Miss Abuine if we could uh call up the Google maps uh you can see the current conditions with respect to the Ballards. Um right now there are perpendicular spaces facing uh the driveway next door. So if for some reason any one of the uh tenants or uh uh uh parks there and they encroach a little bit without the bumper blocks, that's the intent of the bumper block so that the cars that are parking in the parking spaces don't go too far, particularly if they're big pickup trucks. Um um so that's the concern there. Um, the reason we didn't require a fence along the entire property is to enable uh the bumper blocks to uh make ensure that the cars themselves don't encroach into the neighbor's um um driveway. Um and and also that that enables uh if a car is parked in the a neighboring driveway, they they'll be able to open and close the doors and get in and out of cars. the driveway, the residential driveway angles away from the this property as it proceeds towards the garage. The garage provides no visual barrier because it's in behind this property. It's beyond this property. So the purpose of the So there's no visual barrier there now. And again uh our uh obligation is not is to also protect the future residents of and and and and it's a rental property. Um so um it's it's not owneroccupied from what I understand. So if we're just dealing with the owner um we also have to look after the interests of the of the residents that are there. But but further up or following up to my question, it says site plan application 26 SP16260 is currently under consideration. The site plan application is to review the overall layout of the site, particularly the parking lot interactions with neighboring properties. So if we don't make a condition, is staff going to make it a condition anyways? Site plan. Yeah, we have the site plan um the site plan um that we're dealing with is an a request for an exemption. So we we agreed to do an exemption in this particular case because the parking lot was existing and we didn't require any physical work to be done to the site other than the construction of a fence which we thought we could secure through a minor variance application. So this is our opportunity. So there will be no agreement and no securities to ensure the construction of the fence. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, I have the letter here. Uh, it was the reason actually that it wasn't um part of the materials on the agenda is because um it was submitted as part of the site plan application and uh not the minor variance application. So, um I'm just bringing it up here. Do you want me to read it out? Yeah. Okay, please. So, it's dated u January 5th, 2026. Um from Kulvarn Pony uh home address of 42 Stonegate Drive, Grimsby, Ontario. Property in question 4.6 John Street, Grimsby, Ontario. Um regarding fencing requirement between 42 Ontario Street and 46 John Street, Grimsby to whom it may concern. I'm writing this letter to express my concerns regarding the potential fencing requirement of our neighboring property at 42 Ontario Street in Grimby, Ontario. It has come to my attention that this may be a requirement from the town of Grimby to have a fence erected on the property line between the two properties. I do not wish to have the proposed fence erected on the property line for several reasons. Mainly being that the driveway is already tight and may cause the property's tenants to hit the fence or worse, the house with their cars. Also, just being able to exit the vehicles may be an issue. Also, for snow removal and general maintenance, this proposed fencing would make it more difficult to deal with. For these reasons and the fact that I purchased this property in 2018 without the fencing there, we are asking to have the town of Grimsby exempt or wave the fencing requirement between the two properties. Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to reach out at any time. Can I make a comment? Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. You know, I think we have to bear in mind that as a rental property, anybody renting this in the future will be able to see the conditions that are there before they rent it. The absence of a fence does not mean the property is deficient. It means that the that the property is what it is. If people don't like it, they won't rent it. Buildings are what they are. Properties are what they are. Boundaries around properties are what they are. If people wish to rent it, they will rent it. If they don't, they won't. The fence, I don't think, is is a factor so much as privacy as it is really one of maintenance. I mean, the points of trying to pile snow around an a narrow driveway, a driveway that is very close to potentially a fence and a home that cars can't get through. As a property owner, I would not want to see that fence constantly damaged and having to be maintained. I would not want to see the driveway narrowed by snow up against the fence. I would not want to see the house hit. I mean, I think the owner of the property is very clear. Privacy for tenants in the future will be up to their discretion and they can judge that adequately before they elect to rent. Okay. Thank you for those comments. Uh, anything else from the committee right now? Yeah, go ahead, Adam. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. uh to planning. Um I kind of looked at the uh satellite map and the the map of proposed fencing and I guess there is an existing chain link fence there. So wouldn't putting a wooden fence there in fact just be sort of enhancing the privacy because there's already a fence there and then just the parking blocks would be the real addition. Uh Adam, sorry. Is that uh question to the applicant or to the Oh, sorry. Yeah. Uh to planning for planning staff. Can you Sorry. Can you can you repeat that as well? Sorry. Yeah. Just I was looking at the uh satellite. I couldn't quite hear that last part. I'm so sorry. Could you please repeat that? Yeah. The appendix uh to the staff report and it recommends that the fence is only for the three spots, the um the three most southern spots. So my question to planning is if there's a chain link fence there already, wouldn't that in affect the condition just be removing the chain link fence and putting a wooden fence there? Yeah, thank you for the question. That's that's absolutely correct. There is an existing fence there. So the a wood fence in my view would not pro provide any additional barrier to clearing a driveway or to clearing the parking lot. Uh the so I'm I'm guessing that this the difference would be if there was no fence there then would the parking lot be simply cleared just by pushing the snow onto the neighbor's property? It's the fence does not provide a physical barrier from that perspective. Uh in terms of clearing the parking lot. uh not every not every parking lot uh um well in this particular case what what was suggested is that the snow the two tandem parking spaces that are identified the um uh uh the applicant has has indicated that that's where the snow will be uh piled uh when the snow is being cleared on the site and when there is no snow those would be used as parking spaces so so I don't see uh snow clearing as an issue necessarily ly uh bumper blocks I believe are important. I I look at some uh photographs where uh the back of a pickup truck is encroaching partially into into uh the the driveway of the residential lot next door. And I I see that as a potential potential potential issue and bumper blocks are just just a way to make sure that neighbors are happy with each other and there's no conflicts. you know, I wouldn't want to have to deal with or Henry here have to deal with um uh complaints from uh from a tenant in the future that you know, people are encroaching into their driveway with their by backing up their pickup trucks, right? So, that's that's really the purpose of the bumper blocks, just to make sure that everybody gets along. All right. And the fence and the fence would serve the same function. Um it's it's potentially a high activity area and uh it's it's important to have uh some privacy screening to uh private amenity areas in the rear yards of residential lots uh in order to uh make sure that the two land uses coexist uh without conflict. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, and just generally I'm in agreement with the conditions just because like I said, there's existing uh chain link fence there would replaced by wood and the um bumper blocks seem like a natural and appropriate addition to the the property. Thank you. Yeah, I see your hand, Chris. Chris, yeah, go ahead. Yeah, sorry. I don't know how to use it on my phone here to to put up virtually. Um, yeah. So, again, I was there every single day essentially, six days a week for for 10 years. And I can't speak to the fact that we've never had an issue. I do like the bumper blocks. And if there ever I've never had an issue with any of the attendants that were there. They're actually quite lovely. And we we helped them remove some of their um snow as well and um being good neighbors. Now, with the we asked if hey, we wanted to put a new fence up there on the existing where the existing uh chain link is. And the neighbor was uh opposed to that as well because of the the way that the it's set up with the actual uh parking lot. We would have to kind of go onto his lot as well. He was like, "I definitely do not want to do that and change anything at all at all." But I do agree with those bumper blocks would be a great idea and you know it's we talked about it in the past. We just never did it. So, but I think it's a great great way to keep people like you said from encroaching on there even though we've never had any issues with that. Yeah. there for legit even through co six six days a week for almost 10 years straight. Yeah. Yeah. I tend to agree. I think bumper blocks are a a great idea. Um I have a question for planning staff. Uh could a visual screen be added to the chain link fence in in lie of a fence or we uh it must be a fence with tight ports. The existing chain link fence appears to be less than 4 ft in height and uh would provide zero um screening opportunity and and and again the installation of a fence in this particular situation considering the nature of of the development of the site uh you know although it's been here for a long time um we are only now making sure that everything is being done correctly. Um so it was non-conforming for a significant period of time. Also we don't believe the construction of um a uh a 3 m or 2 m high fence behind three parking spaces is an ownorous um condition in this particular case. Thank you. Yeah, I tend to agree. I uh I I think that there there would be value to having a visual uh barrier uh and it is only three spaces and the property uh adjacent does taper uh so it wouldn't impede doors opening in my opinion. Um and that's that's my opinion. Any other thoughts or questions from the committee? I go ahead Fay through the chair. Um, I addressed this question to the planning department of Walter. There is an existing chainlink fence and you are requiring them to remove that and put a wooden fence for privacy. Is that following the exact same footprint that the current fence is on? I'm I'm not a surveyor, so I don't know exactly where that chain link existing chain link fence is. It may be on the lot line, it may not, but uh the uh the applicant has the ability to put a fence on the lot line as a boundary fence, but basically it'll follow the same more or less. Yes. Same pattern. Okay. Thanks, Walter. Yeah. Go ahead. Question. Just one further question. Sorry. One minute. Uh just also for staff, what is the zoning of the abuing use? Is it the same transitional is or is it actually a residential zone? It's a the existing use is a semi- detached lot. So there there are two residences there uh side by side. Uh the zoning um um you got it cuz I know that whole area is in transition. There's a development across the road and it's transitional residential multiple. So it's not commercial. It's it's transitional residential. Okay. But that's right. Which permits uh conversion to semis, right? As an example, which is what it is now, right? Okay. Um, yeah, I would I would tend to agree with the applicant. It's not broke, don't fix it. Put the bullards in, but leave the fence alone. If it's worked for 10 years and no one's complaining about it, the tenants's not here. I would agree that the bullard should suffice along the whole thing. Not not the privacy fence instead of putting a a wooden fence in there. But Yep. Yeah. Go ahead, uh, Mr. Emer. Oh. Uh, I just wanted some clarity on something. So, if we're talking the east boundary line, there's actually seven parking spots there. So, we're talking only spots four, five, and six is the potential conversion from a chain link fence to a board fence. Yes, that's correct. And then, uh, parking spaces 7 to 10 are the bumper blocks. Okay. Makes the bumper blocks make all I mean make all the sense in the world. Thank you. Yep. Yeah. Go ahead, Adam. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to suggest if Dahara could bring up the appendex map that just shows where the fence would be and where the the bumper blocks. Yes. Just give me a second. So yeah, just for everybody's reference, the red is where the fence would be and the blue is where the bumper blocks are requested. And just for the record, uh, anybody in the public want to speak to this application? All right, I see none. I just wanted to make sure I get that out of the way. Um, any further comments or questions from the committee. Do we have a resolution? A motion. Sorry. Yeah. Do we have a motion? I can do one. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. Um resolve that minor variance application A0326 for 42 Ontario Street to permit an exterior sideyard setback of 1.6 6 m abuing a residential area whereas 3 m is required as per site specific 293 section 842 table 15 zoning by 1445 is amended to a per minimum setback to parking spaces of 0.15 m abuing Ontario street whereas 6 m is required as per section 293 section 842 table 15 and zoning by 1445 is amended to permit a parking lot within 0 m of a property n abuing a residential zone. So that was my question. So it is a residential zone whereas 4.5 m is required as per section 55B of zoning by 1445 is amended and to permit the width of an entrance or exit of lot to be 6.4 4 m. Whereas the width of an entrance or exit to a lot be not less than 7.5 m, no not more or nor more than 10.5 m, measured along the street line as per section 511BI of zoning by 1445 is amended and to permit the minimum number of parking spaces be 10 whereas the minimum number of parking spaces required is 11 as per site specific 293 section 842 table 15 of zoning ball 1445 as amended be approved. approved for the reasons of the four meeting the four tests. It's minor nature meets the intent to the official plan and zoning by and is it appropriate for the development use of the land with the one condition that bumper blocks be installed along the parking spaces no not defining them all the parking spaces along the east side of the property line is my motion. Okay, thank you. So you are not going with condition one and for condition two you're going all from uh from 4 until 10 with bumper blocks. Is that correct? 4 to 10. Yeah. 4 till 10. Okay. Uh we have a motion. Do we have a seconder for that? Yeah. Fay is going to second that. Okay. Let's put this to a vote. All in favor raise your hand or say I. All opposed. Raise your hand if opposed. So that was defeated. Uh, Adam, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I'd like to make the same motion with the um other condition state instated. Uh, let me just grab it. One second. Sorry, we can't hear you, Adam. If you're speaking, I think you've been on mute. Yeah, you're still on. You're We still can't hear you. I think I'm having issues with my space bar. No, you're good. You're good. Okay. Sorry. So, I'd like to make a a second motion on this, and it'd be the same pretext, but be approved with conditions. And uh condition one is that a 2 m board privacy fence be constructed along parking spaces 4 to six uh of the east property line. And condition two, that bumper blocks be installed along parking spaces 7 to 10 of the east property line. And it's because the application meets the four tests. Um the intent official plan zoning bylaw is desirable and minor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a seconder for that? Dylan and we'll put that to a vote. All in favor raise your hand. Any opposed? I see two. Okay, that is carried. And it is uh please note that uh um there's a 20-day appeal period before the application becomes uh legal and binding. That's all we have for committee of adjustment. Thank you for both coming to committee and uh we're going to uh take a minute to move into the property standards uh committee. So you're welcome to stay or go um but thank you for your attendance. Thank you. for for listening and I I I appreciate Yep. No, thank you for coming. Okay, we will now move into the property standards committee meeting. the town of uh so so just an overview of the meeting procedures. The town of Grimby representative will present their case first followed by a statement from the appellant. The committee has the opportunity to ask questions after each presentation. The app the appeal to be considered is for the property known as order number two 2026-035 for 295 Park Road South. Um is the appellant or their agent present this evening? Yes, sir. The appalent. Okay. The owner of 295 Park Road. Thank you. Um, I'm going to call on uh Quinn uh Ma, the parking enforcement officer um to now introduce the appeal. Uh please come up to the the lectern and I'm going to swear you in just before you uh give your statement. Uh Quinn, do you affirm that the evidence to be given by you relating to the matters in question between the parties to this proceeding shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Can you please present your evidence? All righty. So through you, Mr. Chair, uh start with the introduction here. All righty. So, my name is Quinn Mob, municipal law enforcement officer and property standards officer with the town of Grimby. You can go next slide, please. So, this is on the agenda today. We got complaint details, investigation, as well as recommendation. All righty. So, I was at uh 295 Park Road South because a complaint was made and I was there to ensure that the vacant buildings were properly boarded up. Uh the the door on the shed has been left open in the K uh chicken coop type building has no boards on the entry points on the rear of the building. Okay, so quick overview for section 5.1 of our property standards bylaw. Uh it states that a 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 that is securely fastened by nails or screws. So, this section exists for health and safety reasons to deter trespassers and animals from getting into these buildings. So, these pictures here uh clearly show that the shed door has been left open. And again, this can allow for any sort of wildlife or uh people to enter the building. And then this is the chicken coupe type building as the back. You can see the two doors. Uh the one is completely open, the other one has just a gap in the top. However, the board is not securely fastened as you can see from the second picture on the right there. So, for the shed, the property standards bylaw does require all entry entry points, excuse me, to be boarded up. However, closing this door on the shed and locking it will suffice. Uh for the chicken coop type building, uh the rear entry points on the building requires to be boarded uh boards attached to prevent access to the building. Uh but the rest of the building is fine. uh town staff believe that this work is minor in nature and is achievable within 25 days. So this is the options for the committee. confirm the order, rescend the order, modify parts of the order, extend time uh for complying with the order. And then our staff recommendation is to uh extend the compliance date require uh required work of the property standards order to May 30th, 2026. Questions? Uh thank you very much. Before I give questions to the committee, I'll give you the opportunity to ask or or um to crossexamine the the officer if you wish. Otherwise, we'll go to committee questions and then you'll have an opportunity to state your case um as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one question for uh Quinn. Quinn, uh who made the uh complaint for you to um attend this property as I requested in several emails to you? Uh sorry, this isn't the time uh or the the uh to get that information wouldn't be in this committee. That would be something that if you want to, you can follow up with bylaw and they can get through the the rules with that one. But the focus of this Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Through you, Mr. Chair. That information and any information um that they're asking for can be accessed through the Freedom of Information Request uh line. uh that is specifically speaking to the MIPA legislation there. Okay, perfect. So that's the avenue and then just what we're tasked with today is to look at the order and whether to follow through with one of those options that uh uh Mr. Ma has suggested. Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I may. Um this situation here is uh it's really complicated. Okay, this is actually a targeted um against myself and my family. And I have all the evidence and the facts to prove about Henry and uh Quinn. And I sent several emails to uh Quinn requesting to rule out that this is not an actual isolated targeted against myself and my family. since March the 12th to the 24th. I was looking for an answer just to rule out, but it confirmed and I have all the evidence and all the facts and I presented all the evidence and the facts today to um the clerk. Okay. Thank you. Uh for now, let's just stay on Mr. Mod's uh um uh his statement. Are there any questions from the committee? Yeah, go ahead. So, so just for clarity, the whole appeal is just regarding the request to secure like you were told to secure the door in the shed and secure all doors and entry points on the chicken coupe. Like that's the only issue. And do you have a problem with that order? Like I know you're asking for an extension, but it doesn't seem to be that ownorous. So, I'm just I'm just asking you're you're requesting an extension to to do the work, but you'll still have to do it at some point, right? So, it would just be extending it I don't know from what's the original order date? Sorry, just give me a moment here. I can pull it up. I know I read it in there somewhere, but the original comp uh compliance date was March 24th, 2026. Okay. So March, April, May. So two-month extension. So you're requesting a two-month extension. It it And then just for further clarification, I guess there's no health and safety like we had the last application. we actually had a potential for a fall or a deck deck collapsing or thing like that. That's not an issue in this case, right? No. Okay. But I I guess the question for me is why can't you do this work or couldn't you have done this work in the requested time regardless of who made the complaint? It's not that big of an issue. It doesn't look like anyways to me. So I'm just wondering if there's a real need to extend it out to May through you, Mr. Chair. Um to answer your question sir that you asked me if I have a problem with this 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 and I think you should uh hear all the evidence and facts that I provided. I provided the email to the clerk and also Victoria Steels today. And if you if you would may, uh, this thing goes back, okay? And if you review all the photos, I actually paid $430 to appeal this. You know, I gave uh Quinn the opportunity. I gave Henry the opportunity also to respond to my emails. All the evidences in all my emails. And um, they didn't give any of those answers because I wanted to rule out to see if I was being targeted. and I am being targeted. And if you may listen to all the evidence and all the evidence that I provided and you can pull up and we can go through it and you'll understand where I'm coming from. Okay. Before we get to that, I see two more questions from the committee. Adam, I saw you first. Go ahead. Yeah, sorry. I just wanted to interject there. I just I think we're going off track. It's the appellants uh opportunity to cross-examine the Yeah. Yeah. I tend to Sorry. Go ahead. is that I I tend to agree with you. Dylan, were you going to say the same thing or did you have another comment too? Yeah, through Yeah, through you, Mr. Jud. Yeah, I just think we sort of need to be done with with by law enforcement first and then we need to swear in the applicant before we before we sort of get into the cross banter if we can just to sort of keep things neat, please. Yep. Yeah, I agree. Um so, we'll move on to that. Thank you uh for your uh um your side. Um so now I'm going to uh the appellent you'll have time to speak. Um and so uh Shamir Khan, do you affirm that the evidence to be given by you relating to the matters in question between the parties to this proceeding shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do sir. Okay. Thank you. Can you please present uh your evidence? And I want to try and just stay focused on the issues at hand and that's being that the door is to be uh latched closed and that the um the chicken coupe in the back be boarded up. Go ahead. If we may uh through you, Mr. Chair, if we could pull up my evidence that I provided to um the town of Grimby today, please. Yes. Just give me a minute. While you're doing that, um I wrote um a letter here for the chair. Good afternoon, Property Standards Committee. It is in deep concern that you look into this matter and the facts provided. I, Shamir Khan, have tried since March the 12th, 2026 to March 24th, 2026 after receiving property standard order 2026-035 to get a better understanding on how this order came about. Please see emails admitted as evidence in regards to this above. It is proof and myself and my family being targeted by law by law enforcement officers, especially Supervisor Henry Boyce. If Henry Boyce has made this situation personal, using his position as a bylaw enforcement officer to abuse his powers. This this all started back with 256 Mountain Road, Grimby, Ontario, L3M4E7, where the harassment started, July 2025. If the town if the town bylaw enforcement officers did their due diligence from the start, we would not be here today with this unnecessary situation. I could provide further facts of this to the property standards committee at a later date anymore. I'm also requesting from the committee to be to be reimbured by the by the bylaw administration fee of $430 for order 2026-035. I'm a simple person who likes to mind his own business, but it's unfortunate I have to waste the community time and my time to explain how this order came about. I'm looking forward to addressing this situation, all the facts committee this evening. I'd like to start off, sir, with 295 Park Road. I provided some pictures of 295 Park Road. Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. I apologize. Yep. Can I just confirm? I'm just looking at the package that the applicant submitted and this and if I'm correct, this email was sent today at 4:26 p.m. It was sent out by staff after at approximately 6:08 p.m. I know I downloaded it because it was a very large file at about4 to 7. Is this I just Is this correct? Perhaps the secretary or can can confirm. Yes, that is correct. That is when we got the information and um Okay. I just I just want to I just sort of want to point that out because it's 121page document that was received the day of the committee and as a committee member me logging in to get ready just you know after I've already read all of the materials to then be presented with 121page document that was submitted only the day of and 4 minutes before the close of So I just want to put that out there to the applicant but also to the rest of the committee that you know 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 and then make you know you know digest that and be prepared to to answer or to to ask you know reasonable questions. So I think that this needs to be factored into how we deal with this matter tonight and also as you have said Mr. Chair that we keep this to the matter at hand. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I agree. I didn't have an opportunity to view it. I as I walked in was told an an email was sent out uh late in the day that encompassed uh some extra information. Um and yeah, I do I do want to stay on the matter at hand. Um, I think that uh this committee cannot resolve maybe what you're looking to have resolved. Um, and we need to stay focused on the order uh for the chicken coupe to be boarded up and the the door to be latched closed. So, I think that's what we're tasked with today. Let's stay focused on that. to go through a 120 page document. Um I I yeah um I don't think that the the order in question merits this. But go ahead. Let's let's can you speak to those two those two things? The latching of the door and the boarding of the chicken coupe. All through you, Mr. Chair. there. Everything here is important. Okay. And um what I wanted to say was that um hold on one second. I lost my train of thought here for a second. The reason why we're here today with this order, Mr. chair is because like I said, this is an isolated, targeted against myself and my family and all this evidence is should be heard and listened to and take very seriously. Just to add, yesterday at 9:57 a.m. I received disclosure from the town from Henry Voice at 9:57 a.m. yesterday, which is Monday, April the um was yesterday the 20th. 20th. Yes. Okay. And um I actually attended the town of Grimy at 11:30 a.m. and requesting a hard copy of disclosure. So in all fairness, I received disclosure yesterday, the day before a meeting. And I was just reading here too under the um the property standards bylaw appeal process that um all my evidence here could be admitted. Okay. Um this is uncharted territories for us. Um and I want to confirm with the committee and specifically Dylan. Do we want to look to uh postpone this? Can can we do that um a month to the next committee meeting? That way we have enough time to digest this material. Um Dylan, what do you what are your thoughts on that? Well, I mean, we're here now and I'm happy to hear a brief statement from the applicant regarding the issue at hand. Okay, as you have said and I think the committee agrees with although I won't speak for others. if 121 pages and the various emails need to all be considered because he feel believes it's relevant to the order then I then I would move for immediate adjournment or sorry immediate indefinite postponement until the applicant is ready um to have this material presented to the committee to allow us to read all of the materials. So if he would like to speak now to the to the order that that we as the committee that um to the order that we as the committee of adjustment have jurisdiction over then I'm happy to hear that. Now, you know, I think some of the things that I've been able to sort of, you know, read while the committee while the meeting has been going on, these these are likely things that need to be taken up with town senior staff and is certainly outside of our jurisdiction and decisions that we cannot address. So again, my thing, my recommendation would be if the applicant would like to speak to the to the to the order, I'm happy to do that now. If he wishes to come back at a later time where we have all read the materials and a prolonged presentation is not required, then I would move to uh um that we move this to the next meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Your hand is up. Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. chair. Yes, I agree um with what Dylan said. Um in the alternate, I would say if the appellant wants to say give a one or two minute brief summary of the evidence uh the package that was received today as it relates to the two um property standards item and not beyond that area, then I think perhaps that's another option we could explore. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts from the committee? Yeah, go ahead, Fay. Um through you, chair. My opinion is we tonight I would like to um make a motion on the two um the two pieces of information we've already been given. And if that then we have to go forward at another time, we can go forward at another time. But I paid a a site visit to this property and um what I saw at the property was a property that wasn't being looked after by um the owner. 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. There's secure door on the shed. The door was flapping open when I was there. That's a minor thing. either secure it or put a lock on it. Um the chicken coupe, it did have points of entry. Um it had some openings that needed to be boarded up, but I don't think the town is asking for a lot um to be done on this property. There were also other things on the property. There was a lot of um refu also a big large bin there, an industrial bin, and that's not mentioned in here. So, I'd like to just um have a motion on this and uh not prolong it. That's my opinion. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Kevin. Yeah, I would agree with Fay. Um I I thought there'd be a lot more to the order than a very simple request and deferring it or extending the order to comply still gives you ample time to deal with your issue with town staff and management. But in terms of our role here as committee, we're just here to, you know, overturn, rescend or extend, but extending doesn't hurt anything. It a town is in support of extending it till May. So, I don't know what the issue would be. I think there's a lot more issues. I agree with Fay. There's a lot more issues with this property regardless of how the complaint came about. We had a poor gentleman on Maple Avenue that was, you know, complained against by his neighbor with some wood laying around and some other little simple things and we had to deal with it regardless of how it got there. I get it. everybody feels that they've been um slighted or persecuted or whatever you want to say, but we're just dealing with the facts that do you want to extend the the order or give you the extension of the order? And I'm in favor of that. I don't think it hurts anything. Um if you want to deal with the appeal of your fee, you can deal that with with town staff, but I think it's a pretty fair uh assessment that staff have presented here is very simple order. Lock up the chicken coupe and we'll give you an extension of two months to do it. Um, and we could still deal with other issues later on if there's more that come come to us. So, I would agree with Fay on that. Okay. Um, then I'm going to put it to you, sir. Uh, we have four options. So, of the four options, as um, member Kevin member Antonitis said, um, we can confirm the order, we can resend the order, we can extend it to a a compliance date, which has been recommended to May 31st. uh or we can modify the order. That's all we have power to do. So, all uh as uh um member Bailey said, um some of the issues you've you've laid out in that document maybe need to go to um uh a senior staffer uh with the town, but that is not within our um our ability in this um this committee. So, of those four options, would you like to speak to one of them? Well, I would like the um this order being put off so you can actually carefully review and understand the importance and nature how this is very crucial and important for you to look at all the evidence. And to answer your question through Mr. Chair, um I actually did attempt to uh resolve this because I find this is a waste of my time. It's a waste of your time. It's a waste of everyone's time. Okay. But unfortunately, we're here today and I attempted to resolve this issue through Victoria Steel's Sarah Kims. So, I actually numerous from March the 12th, like I said before, until March 24th tried to resolve this. And just to add, 295 Park Road, I've only been the owner now for this property for 8 and a half months. the previous owners who owned the property. Okay. All these things that's being brought up was was always like that. Everything that they brought up in into um evidence here, it's it's been like that. I've only been the property owner for 8 and 1/2 months. So I urge you all to uh review the evidence because this is serious in nature because this law enforcement officers that you have Henry and Quinn is abusing their powers using their position of authority. okay to do whatever they want and I have all the evidence and if you could please and may admit my evidence put the meeting off to a later date so that you can actually read all my emails and read the emails like I attempted numerous time to alleviate all of this. I understand the order. The order is simple but if you read all my emails you will understand this is an isolated targeted against myself and my family. It goes beyond and all the facts is clear. Okay. Thank you, Adam. I see your hand is up. Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just a quick question to the appellant. Um, they talked about this, this matter dragging on and everything. How long would it take for them to correct those two items? Go ahead. How long would it take you to correct those two items is his question. the fact it's it's not about how long it's going to take. It's the fact that what brought us here in this meeting here today and I had to pay $430 for my voice to be heard today. That's what I'm talking about. And this is an isolated targeted offense against myself and my family like I repeated numerous times. So this is not just like based on this order. If you read all the evidence, you will understand and understand there's a deep concern here. Okay. So, I'm I'm looking ahead at uh the May date. We May 19th is our next committee meeting and I'm not making a motion right now, but um what I would suggest is if we do defer this to the 19th that we still uphold potentially the May 31st date because that still provides that uh a week and a bit to to um amend this situation at that time. So, we're still getting to the same deadline, but that gives us some time to review anything um that could potentially be pertinent to this. But I do tend to agree it's two things. FA, you had your hand up. Oh, um did you? I did, but it's okay. Go ahead, Dylan. And just for clarification, if we if we tonight as the committee act on one of the four um options that we have whether to confirm, resend, modify or extend. So let's say let's just you know hypothetically we we extend the the compliance date to the end of of of May as is recommended. Procedurally, can this be brought back to the committee since our options have been we have acted on one of those options? Uh FA, you want to talk to this through the chair? Um that's a very good point and that's why I'm concerned with um this going over one or two meetings. I would like to just motion it tonight and have a resolution tonight. There's only two items the town is asking for. Secure the door in the shed and the chicken coupe. And I think May 30th gives the um the owner of the property a lot of time to get that done. And then if they he wants to then go forward with the complaint with the town, then that could be a a totally separate item. But I think tonight I've got enough um information after my site visit, after listening to the owner. Um I've got enough information to u move ahead with a motion on this. I see Dylan, your hand up. Is it up from before or up again? Sorry. Still up from before, but I I think Yeah, I'll let Adam go. Sorry. I'll go ahead. Adam, you're on mute again. Okay, sorry. Um, yeah, I would agree with Fay. I mean, the the appellent says they're simple items to fix, so he's addressed uh his ability to fix them, and I I think uh yeah, stretching it over to next meeting is is unnecessary. I mean, there seems to be two issues here, and we're only here to deal with the property standards order. If there's anything else beyond that, that's between the appellant and the municipality. And Mr. Chair, I'm happy to proceed down that that route as been s as has been suggested by Adam and uh and Fay. Thank you. Uh yeah, go ahead. Yes, through you, Mr. Chair. I understand this what we're going back and forth here, but like I said, um I understand we're f trying to focus on the order here. I don't have any issues with that order. I have what the issue is is how this order came about. And I just simply asked if you review the evidence, the email to Quinn and um Henry and even Sarah and even uh Victoria Steel and no answer was given why this order, why did they come out? If you look from the street view of this property from the front door to the roadway, it's 120 ft. I supplied pictures of the property. How how did they realize and come to order with this order? If you look at all the other evidence that I supplied it, I supplied multiple properties on Mountain Road Main Street. That is a disaster. Okay, compare this property. You can't see any evidence of any uh rubbish or anything from the street view. We're talking 120 ft. I just asked a simple question from Quinn through those emails and if they had just gave me the answer, you know, I would have left this alone. But I know this is an isolated targeted and you guys should really seriously take this serious. Yeah, Adam Adam had his hand up first and then Dylan. Yeah, thank you again, Mr. Chair. Um, simple question to the appellent. Uh, two options. Would they prefer that the order be uh confirmed with the um work to be completed as stated on the order or would they like to uh have an extension until May the 30th as per uh staff recommendation? Sorry. U I I see you're all on this the same team here. So, um, one of the option was to put put off the meeting so that you can actually review all the evidence because there's a big concern here with your law enforcement officer here, okay? Being targeted, okay? Myself and my family and you guys are not taking this serious. I understand about order and I would have complied with the order, but I hope you can understand where I'm coming from from all of this and actually review. And like I said, if you review all the f the the photos that I've provided with all the different addresses, there's multiple things like um I was just asking a simple question. So you were offering me before to put off the meeting. I would appreciate if you guys would take the time, you know, that I did today and I had to pay $430 to come here today and not to wash this away and just look into it at least. Okay. Thank you, Kevin. Uh, yeah, Dylan, go ahead. No, I'll defer to others for for the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adam, was your hand still up? Uh, yeah, it was. Um, but I've forgotten my question at this point. So, if I remember, I'll get back to you. Thank Okay. Any Go ahead. Just just question for staff. uh what instigates a property standard uh review or what brings it to this? Is it uh a complaint or is it staff driving around looking for things to do? I guess that would be my question. He's claiming you he was targeted, but what makes you act on a property standard um issue through the chair in this specific instance in general? In general, um, complaint basis is how the town of Grimby operates on the property standards basis. Uh, in this case, it was due to a complaint and the town acted upon that complaint as noted, uh, and why the order was issued here today. So, it's not staff looking for properties to go after or people to go after through the chair. Uh, complaints keep municipal law enforcement quite busy. No. So, so if the applicant or the appellant, sorry, I guess it's the appellant had an issue with other properties on the street like he's claiming, then he has a right to file a complaint on any of those properties and you would then be forced to investigate those properties in the same manner like any other through the chair. That is correct. The town would be willing to accept those as complaints if they were uh submitted through the proper channels. We accept those either through online, by phone, or through the email to mldgrimsby.ca. CA. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Yes. Through you, uh, Mr. Chair, um, well, we would just say, this is not the fact here, a complaint from a neighbor. If you look right across the street from where I am, there's farmland and right beside me, there's only one neighbor and to the right of me, there's no other neighbors. So, there was no complaint came in in that fact. So, if they can actually say to you that an actual neighbor or a complaint came from a neighbor, they're lying. Well, in in fairness, we only have hearsay and yes, exactly. And and know as to like whether there was or wasn't. Um and you have the freedom of information um avenue that you can go. But I will say um anecdotally that uh we had a case here before that someone was just I think looking to complain. So it was someone in the neighborhood looking to make complaints about different um units. But um anyway, that is not the issue at hand. Um it sounds to me like the committee um wanted to make a motion. So, I'm going to allow for that because the committee does have to operate as a committee and that motion whether it's seconded or not and voted up or down um we have to let the process go through. So, FA did you want to make a motion? Uh yes, through your chair. Um resolve that the property standards committee confirm property standards order number 2026-035 where the owner of the property secures the door on the shed located on the southwest um side of the main house. Secures all doors and entry points on the chicken coupe type building located on the eastern side of the property. um that I'd like to make that motion to confirm and also a recommended date to be carried out by uh May 30th, 2026. Okay. So, um just to be clear, is that to extend the compliance date for the required work? It will extend the date to May 30th, 2026. Okay. As staff has uh recommended. Yes. Okay. Um, do I have a seconder on that? Adam is going to second that. Any further debate on that motion from the committee? Uh, just from the committee from me. Okay, we'll put it to a vote. All in favor of the motion, raise your hand. Any opposed? It's carried. Yeah. So, the municipality in which the property is situated or any owner or o occupant or person affected by the decision of the property standards committee may appeal to the superior court of justice by notifying the town clerk in writing and by applying to the court within 14 days after a copy of the decision has been sent out. I would like to thank everyone. Um, we're good. Yep. Thank everyone. Um, the property standards committee now is adjourned at 8:25 p.m. and we will now uh proceed to the committee of adjustment meeting. The next committee of adjustment meeting will be held on May 19th, 2026. That adjourns our meeting this evening. Thank you everyone. Good morning everyone. Good

Full Transcript