[0:30] Good evening everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to

[0:33] order under the authority of subsection 45 of the planning

[0:37] act, RSO 1990 chapter P13 has amended to provide relief

[0:42] from zoning bylaw 07 - 67. We will be hearing

[0:47] Application A07 - 26 this evening. The purpose of this

[0:52] hearing of the Committee of Adjustment is to allow the

[0:55] presentation of an application for a minor variance and to

[0:59] allow interested members of the public the opportunity to ask

[1:02] questions or offer comments regarding this application. The Committee will

[1:07] exchange views and the decision will come after full consideration

[1:12] of input from the hearing submissions from any interested parties

[1:16] and comments from agencies. If any member of the public

[1:19] would like to be notified in rating of the Committee

[1:22] of Adjustments Decision on an application there to email coa

[1:27] at iron. ca or mail this request to 568 Forge

[1:32] or Fogger Road. Hillsburg, Ontario, NOB 10O. For anyone who

[1:38] has completed the sign - in sheet at the podium,

[1:41] please note you do not need to separately submit a

[1:44] written request to be notified. We'll start with deferrals. Consider

[1:49] the Application allow any parties interested in the Application to

[1:53] speak. Allow additional comments from the Applicant and then come

[1:56] to a decision. So I have a, the following motion

[1:59] before the committee, be it resolved that the Committee hereby

[2:02] approves the Agenda circulated. Do I have a mover and

[2:06] a secondary for this motion. I'll second. All those in

[2:13] favor. Carried. Declaration of Prachinitary interests. Do any members of

[2:20] the Committee have any pequenitary interests regarding an application before

[2:23] the Committee today? Seeing none, we will carry on. I

[2:29] have the following motion before the committee, be it resolved

[2:32] that the Committee hereby adopts the minutes and circulated for

[2:35] the meeting of June 17, 2026. Do I have a

[2:39] mover in secondary for that motion. I'll move it. Remember

[2:47] Bruce will secondly. All those in favor. Carried. Request for

[2:53] withdrawal defer. So does the Applicant wish for whatever reason

[2:57] to withdraw or to further application? And I'm calling on

[3:03] Maria Jones. Okay, thank you. Justin, will you please confirm

[3:12] that Notus was provided. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you.

[3:16] Notice was given on August 6th to every owner of

[3:18] land within 60 metres of the subject property and to

[3:21] ages requiring Notices prescribed under the Planning Act. Thank you.

[3:26] We will now consider the Application file number A07 -

[3:31] 26. Location is 5916 Trafalgar Road North Hillsburg. I will

[3:38] now invite the town senior planner who is with us

[3:41] virtually. Thank you Jessica for being here to present her

[3:45] report. Jessica, do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to

[3:49] be given by you at this hearing touching the matters

[3:52] and questions shall be the truth, the whole truth, and

[3:54] nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, carry on.

[4:00] Through you Mr. Chair, this is minor variance applications 07

[4:04] - 26 for Hillsburg Heights, Inc. Located at 5916 Trafalgar

[4:09] Road North in Hillsburg. The Application is to facilitate the

[4:14] development of single detached and townhouse dwellings associated with the

[4:18] proposed redline revisions to the county - approved draft plan

[4:22] of subdivision 23t . 2. And the red line revisions

[4:28] will our subject to count the approval. Four variances were

[4:33] requested. A minimum exterior side yard of. Such dwellings in

[4:38] the UR - 1 - 102 zone, whereas the minimum

[4:42] exterior side Jared shall be four metres. A maximum building

[4:46] height of 13 metres for single detached dwellings in the

[4:49] UR - 1 - 102 zone, whereas the maximum building

[4:53] height shall not exceed 11 metres. Building height of 13

[4:58] metres for all - town. Have you are 2 -

[5:01] 101 zone, whereas the maximum building height shall not exceed

[5:05] 12. 5 metres for a stack townhouses and 11 metres

[5:09] for all other. A minimum watt frontage of 6 metres

[5:13] per end unit or corner lot for a townhouse. In

[5:17] the UR2 - 101 zone, whereas the minimum lot -

[5:22] fronted shall be 6 metres per unit on an interior

[5:25] lot and 7 metres per year and unit or corner

[5:30] lot. Staffer satisfied that the Application meets the 4 tests

[5:34] of the planning act. No objections were received from circulated

[5:38] agencies or departments as the Hillsburg subdivision has already received

[5:44] approval establishing an overall development framework, including road network and

[5:48] housing forms. The applicant is requesting that certain permissions already

[5:53] established elsewhere and be extended. Three written submissions from members

[5:59] of the public were received by staff after this report

[6:01] was finalised and were subsequently forwarded to the committee for

[6:05] consideration. Planning staff recommended approval of the Application. Thank you

[6:13] very much. We'll now provide an opportunity for representation and

[6:20] questions regarding A07 - 26. So at this time I'll

[6:24] call Maria to the podium if she could please. Maria,

[6:34] do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given

[6:36] by you at this hearing touches the matters and questions

[6:39] shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

[6:42] the truth. I do. Thank you, carry on. Good evening.

[6:49] My name is Maria Jones. I'm a planner with Candevcon

[6:52] group representing the Applicant Hillsburg Heights. Our presentation complements that

[7:00] was present, the one that was presented by the town.

[7:04] We had submitted a minor variance application to facilitate the

[7:08] development of single detached in townhost dwellings in accordance. With

[7:17] the, in accordance with the proposed red line revisions to

[7:21] the county approved draft plan as subdivision 23T - 21002.

[7:29] For some background, the site was rezoned on December 12,

[7:35] 2024 through zoning bylaw, amendment 2454, and the plan of

[7:41] subdivision was approved on December 19, 2025. The approved subdivision

[7:46] included 195 single detached lots, 174 townhouse units, a school

[7:53] block, a park. And stormwater management facilities. During the detailed

[8:00] engineering design, it became apparent that the site topography, particularly

[8:06] within the townhouse blocks north of the stormwater management pond

[8:11] near Trafalgaro created some grading challenges due to the southward

[8:17] slope. To address these conditions. A limited number of single

[8:22] detached in townhouse lots were reconfigured to better accommodate the

[8:27] site. This area of photo here illustrates the subject lands

[8:33] in context to the surrounding area. As indicated, the requested

[8:42] through the planner, the requested variance is provide flexibility by

[8:47] both single detached and townhouse lots within the UR -

[8:52] 1 102 and you are 2101 zones of the site

[8:57] - specific bylaw. For the townhouse lots in the UR

[9:03] - 2101 zone, relief is requested to permit the minimum

[9:08] frontage of 6 metres for ending corner units, whereas seven

[9:13] metres is permitted or required. To permit a maximum height,

[9:19] building height of 13 metres, whereas a maximum of 12.

[9:24] 5 metres for Stack Townhouses and 11 metres for other

[9:28] townhouse forms is permitted. For single detached lots in the

[9:34] UR - 1 - 02 zone, relief is requested to

[9:38] permit exterior side yards of 3 metres, whereas 4 metres

[9:43] are required, and to permit a maximum building height of

[9:46] 13 metres where 11 metres are permitted. These variances allow

[9:50] the single detached in townhouse lots to be developed interchangeably

[9:55] within the affected zones. This slide identifies the area affected

[10:04] by the proposed red line revisions through the red lines.

[10:11] The affected area is located north of the stormwater management

[10:15] blonde near Trafalgar Road. The proposed law configurations correspond to

[10:21] existing grading constraints and will accommodate walk out basement designs.

[10:28] It will reduce the need for between walls, between homes,

[10:33] minimize existing grading and slight alterations and avoid unconventional building

[10:38] designs that would otherwise be required due to the sight

[10:42] slope. In our opinion, the Application satisfies

[10:52] all four tests under the planning act. It may, the

[10:55] Application maintains the intent of the official plan. It proposes

[11:00] development required development. The proposed development remains residential in nature

[11:09] and continues to implement the approved residential designation. Both townhouse

[11:15] and single detached dwelling are permitted forms in the official

[11:20] plan. It does maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw.

[11:26] The variances do not alter the overall vision or function

[11:29] of the approved zoning. Rather they introduce limited site -

[11:34] specific provisions to provide flexibility while maintaining appropriate setbacks, streetscape

[11:40] character, landscape opportunities, and building design. It is desirable for

[11:46] the appropriate development of the land, the variances support practical

[11:51] development solutions that respond to site conditions. They allow for

[11:57] efficient lot layouts and building designs while maintaining the intent

[12:01] of the approved subdivision. And we feel that it is

[12:06] minor in nature. The request relief is technical and limited

[12:10] in scope. The subdivision continues to provide the same housing

[12:14] forms already approved and will end with only minor adjustments

[12:20] to lock configurations. In conclusion, upon approval of the variances,

[12:28] a red line revision to the approved draft plan of

[12:31] subdivid or to the approved plan of subdivision will be

[12:34] submitted to the town and county for final approval. And

[12:37] the county will be the final approval authority. The revised

[12:41] plan proposes 198 single detached lots and 173 townhouse units

[12:47] representing essentially no change to the overall density of the

[12:51] subdivision. The proposed red line revisions and associated variances are

[12:57] technical in nature, and they respond to site - specific

[13:00] grading constraints and represents good planning. That concludes my presentation.

[13:09] Thank you very much. I'm sure we will be back

[13:14] to you here shortly. So next we will allow any

[13:19] members of the public desiring to speak to make their

[13:23] representation. Please note that you'll have up to 10 minutes

[13:26] to make your representation and that your comments or questions

[13:30] should specifically relate to the Application before the committee. So

[13:35] that is just strictly on the variances that they're requesting

[13:39] of the height to go from 11 metres to 13

[13:47] from 12 and a half to 13. The front edge

[13:51] to go from 7 to 6, and the side lots

[13:55] to go from 4 metres to 3 metres. So, um,

[14:01] at this time, I believe we have one person that

[14:04] would like to speak. So is there a stert, Brennan?

[14:09] Okay. So Stuart. Hang on a second. Go - brother.

[14:14] Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given

[14:17] by you at this hearing touching the matters and questions

[14:20] shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

[14:22] the truth? Absolutely. Thank you very much. I may be

[14:26] at the wrong way say it in regards to the

[14:31] application. For the variants. However. You're asking, they're asking the

[14:41] residents for support. And we as the residents, we don't

[14:47] seem to be getting any support back from this company.

[14:53] So we have a few issues in our neighbourhood. And

[14:58] unfortunately it's not to do with the variance. So that's

[15:02] where you're here for today, correct? However, because we've been

[15:07] chased in the company because they have so many different

[15:12] people in between, the towns hired, I believe, it's Ainsley

[15:18] group. That represent any problems. And the gentleman's name is

[15:24] Josh McLean. Who is the goal between. For the town.

[15:29] And we've had issues since they started construction, but it's

[15:34] really come to a light with their grading. And I

[15:38] live, I back on to the stormwater management pond. So

[15:47] this is going to directly affect me. Now the grading

[15:52] they have there on my side is I was told

[15:57] by this Josh gentleman that they were supposed to change

[16:01] the grading there. Now you're talking about the grading on

[16:05] the other side. I'm talking about the grading that box

[16:08] on our place. And the issue we have and myself

[16:16] and my other neighbours is. During the first time they

[16:21] put up that black fence. Now you put around it

[16:25] for a construction. Well, that fence fell down. And they

[16:28] had Bellsley haze in between, right? So the pressure then

[16:32] went and it threw my fence down. And then they

[16:37] came and I said, you got to put a new

[16:39] fence up, right? Like not a new one, but repair

[16:42] my fence. So they came and they put another black

[16:48] fence up another six yards in behind the black fence

[16:52] that went down. So nobody since then, uh, we've sent

[16:59] out my neighbours that sent out emails to all the

[17:03] town councillors, no reply. The only person that has replied

[17:08] to us is a mayor so far. And we had

[17:12] a conversation last week, they replied to another one of

[17:18] the other replied from the mayor. That's all a phone

[17:21] call. Okay. And I explained what was going on. I

[17:25] didn't know that this, this variance was going on. So

[17:28] he said he can't get involved or whatever. And this

[17:31] may not be the place for. It. But if this

[17:36] is what this company is doing now. I expect, because

[17:41] it's been almost three years, I would suspect that this

[17:44] is what they're going to do in the future. And

[17:47] that's why I'm dead against this. I don't care how

[17:51] big they build it or anything, but they, they have

[17:54] to at least address our concerns as neighbours. If they

[18:00] don't want it, then we have a big issue. And

[18:05] we're held, unfortunately, we're health issues. Now our neighbours across

[18:10] the street also us, my wife, her eyes, but the

[18:14] kinds of stuff that's going on. Nothing that's addressed. Nope.

[18:18] And they tell Josh, they're going to come and redo

[18:21] the, uh, the hill. I have seen, when he plays,

[18:25] they redid the hill is where the town's fire extinguisher,

[18:29] uh, fire hydrant is. Other than that, they have done

[18:33] nothing with redoing that hill. It's a mess. Okay. Um,

[18:38] Jessica and between you and Justin, maybe there's somebody that,

[18:43] um, you guys can have contact the local residents that

[18:47] have filed questions and stuff like that. Uh, I'm sure

[18:52] you guys will have a, have somebody that could contact

[18:55] them and work through some of this. Um, it doesn't

[18:58] affect the, um, the application tonight. But, um, there is

[19:04] concerns that they've had that they've been trying to get

[19:06] some answers to. So maybe between the two years you

[19:10] can figure out or this other company. You guys can

[19:13] have them reach out to them and see if they

[19:16] can't get them some answers. Um, just cause you guys

[19:19] are with the town. I'm hoping that, um, that you

[19:21] guys know somebody that you guys can get in contact

[19:24] with that they can go and see some of the

[19:26] residents that are right there that are being affected. And

[19:30] hopefully get them some answers and that might help, help,

[19:33] uh, straighten a lot of things out. I appreciate that.

[19:39] But we have been in contact. I got all kinds

[19:41] of emails that's coming. But okay, no resolve. Okay. Well,

[19:45] hopefully we can get you something. Thank you. Thank you.

[19:50] Is there anyone else that would like. Please step up?

[19:54] You're going to have to state your name. Cause unfortunately

[19:55] I don't have it here on my list. My name

[19:57] is Marilyn. My last name is Pressful. He put several

[20:00] emails. From me. Okay. Maryland, do you saw me affirm

[20:04] that the evidence to be given by you at this

[20:06] hearing touching the matters in questions shall be the truth.

[20:09] The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank

[20:11] you, carry on. So I have no problem with the

[20:14] growth at Hillsburg. I think it's fabulous what we're doing.

[20:17] I'm directly affected because I do back on. I'm one

[20:20] of the neighbours. I know Molly and Dan, Paul and

[20:23] Pearl. I can name them all. Well, my concern is,

[20:26] is not the minor variance. Thank you, Jessica, for all

[20:29] your work. It's that it's a blanket variance because what

[20:33] they've asked for is not just for these specific homes,

[20:37] but they're now saying we don't have to do the

[20:39] rest of the paperwork. We want to be able to

[20:41] do these variances as we go forward. I would be

[20:44] fine if you just specify those houses. And said, that's

[20:49] what we're going to make the changes to. Those are

[20:52] minor variances. But this is asking for a blanket change.

[20:56] And I agree with you. I don't trust them. I

[20:59] don't trust. And this is going to sound horrible. Council

[21:04] to have the time to be able to address all

[21:07] the small things that we as homeowners. I've been here

[21:09] for over two decades with my husband. I don't think

[21:13] it's appropriate. That this is considered minor. It is blanket

[21:17] for the entire subdivision. Sorry Jessica. I know it's more

[21:21] paperwork for you, but it is my home. Additionally, we

[21:26] have to consider the green spaces. So if the builder

[21:29] can admit that it's not minor, this is asking for

[21:32] a blanket change to save the paperwork. And I understand

[21:36] it's a lot of work. But it is not okay.

[21:38] To be signed off as minor. If you can specify

[21:42] the lot numbers, the changes to those lot numbers and

[21:46] not make it future forward because I don't think you

[21:49] can go back once you've given them off the leash.

[21:53] They're going to be off the leash. Jessica, it only

[21:59] affects the ones within the red line on the diagram,

[22:02] correct? The Applicant is proposing changes which are the red

[22:07] lines. Um, however, it is for the whole zone. And

[22:15] I hear the residents concern. However, there are already existing

[22:22] established permissions for 13 metre kites. They're permitted to put,

[22:32] they're already exist permissions to put townhouses where singles are

[22:36] and singles where townhouses are, um, it's just those slight

[22:41] iterations of, um, a metre or two metres that is

[22:46] in question. So, um, backing on to upper Canada Drive,

[22:52] um, they're already permissions for 13 metre heights. And three

[22:58] metre, um, exterior, uh, side air. So the permissions are

[23:03] already there in certain zones. Okay. Thank you. No, that

[23:11] does not clear it up. It already is passed on

[23:14] some. Of it. And this is all. We're really looking

[23:16] at. Is the red line. Because it's already passe. On

[23:20] the other stuff. It didn't come from a. So can

[23:22] I ask a question, Jessica? Are they able to change

[23:24] those, um, single unit homes. And obviously I'm asking for

[23:30] myself and for the people who are not here, that

[23:33] back directly onto it. Are those going to remain single

[23:36] unit homes. Those will remain single detached dwellings. However, there

[23:42] are permissions if they wanted to without coming for a

[23:45] minor variance. To change them into townhouses. And when they

[23:50] wouldn't need a minor, may I ask, sorry to cut

[23:52] you off. When did that happen? Uh, well, it didn't

[23:58] happen. It's not happening. They're, they're keeping them as singles.

[24:03] But the zone, the, the exception zone already permits townhouses.

[24:09] So they could go straight to the county and request

[24:11] a red line revision and put in towns. They wouldn't

[24:14] even have to come to, uh, the Committee of Adjustment.

[24:18] But they're not going to do that. We've worked with

[24:23] them and, um, public. And they're going to put single

[24:29] detached dwellings in that area. Only a few minor homes

[24:33] will be changed. And it is for grading purposes. I

[24:40] will leave this in the council's, the committee's hands. I

[24:44] want you to understand what it's like to live behind

[24:47] these developers. We've definitely worked with them. And I've had

[24:50] a different experience on a couple of occasions where they

[24:53] have been quite supportive when we had flooding across our

[24:56] entire backyard in our septic for several days. They did

[25:00] come and support that. So please forgive me if I

[25:03] appear to be a little over concerned. I don't think

[25:06] you can be over concerned given the situation that we

[25:08] are in in Ontario at this time. And I do

[25:11] not want to see something that is not reflective. That's

[25:16] the word. Of Aaron's charm. And I don't want to

[25:20] see less green space or less consideration for the people

[25:23] that should have the charm and the ability to have

[25:26] a wonderful community there. Thank you for putting up with

[25:28] all my emails, Justin as well. Anyways, um, I do

[25:32] think it could have been a better, uh, application being

[25:35] minor. If it is truly minor not being blanket, um,

[25:39] because you may know these things, Jessica, but I do

[25:41] not. And the people up and down my street do

[25:44] not. And we are very concerned. So thank you for

[25:47] listening to me this evening. Thank you very much. Is

[25:53] there anyone else. Seeing none, I will now invite questions.

[26:02] Um, that they have for the Applicant or the staff.

[26:05] And Marielle invite you back to the podium just to

[26:09] answer your questions from the committee. And I will turn

[26:11] it over to the committee. Bill, you got to help

[26:15] me out here. You got to have a question. Yes,

[26:18] hi Maria. Uh, I do have a few questions. Um,

[26:22] obviously it's just the townhouse lots and those singles that

[26:25] are on the red line revisions, um, I mean, yes,

[26:29] uh, the variances requested are specific to the, uh, the

[26:34] zone categories, I would assume, um, would you have any

[26:37] objection if we tied it, the approval. To the red

[26:42] line plan essentially. Like a simple condition, tying it to

[26:46] the red line plan that these variances are for those

[26:48] particular lots that are outlined on the red line plan.

[26:51] I mean, that basically would entail that the variances as

[26:55] approved cannot be as the neighbour suggested used elsewhere. And

[26:59] I know that there's 14 metre approvals throughout the set

[27:02] of vision height approvals. The setbacks and so forth. Um,

[27:07] just, I can't see a reason why we can't tie

[27:09] it to these specific lots. As opposed to the whole

[27:12] zone category. And maybe that's a question through Jessica and

[27:14] Justin. But, uh, it may satisfy the neighbours to a

[27:17] certain extent. Is that possible. Jessica. I would just caution

[27:27] in case that the Applicant had to come back and,

[27:30] um, make further minor adjustments. Um, and that's why the,

[27:37] um, exterior lots were included in here. Um, because they

[27:42] may need to move some of the singles to the

[27:46] outside of the street. Um, so we would be back

[27:50] at committee again, asking, uh, for relief. Uh, this way

[27:56] we do it once. Um. The revisions are just in

[28:02] that area. Uh, and it's just so that the developer

[28:05] can get going with these with the first phase. Not

[28:11] that it ultimately it's committee's decision. But Jessica, if we

[28:15] were to do it just on the red line, um,

[28:17] units affected within the red line. And they did have

[28:20] to come back to the committee. That would at least

[28:22] keep the neighbours inform, um, I believe they feel that

[28:27] they're not informed right now. Um, that that would make

[28:31] them be informed because they would have to come back

[28:35] and get approval. They know what's, what's being changed. Um,

[28:40] so do you see any problem with that? If we

[28:42] had, we had that. Uh, there would be no problem

[28:46] with that. All right. Thank you. Any. Other questions. Um,

[28:53] just one more question. Just, you know, this, we're dealing

[28:56] with the minor variances. I know the neighbours have brought

[28:58] up the grading and drainage. Isn't there a relatively large,

[29:01] uh, deposit as part of the planet television that's being

[29:04] put forth to the town that if there is issues,

[29:06] I mean, the town could threaten to take some of

[29:08] that money that's been part of the LC or bond

[29:12] and put it towards the town going out and repairing

[29:15] things. I mean, it's just a consideration. Yeah, that would

[29:19] come through there are securities held. With a town. The

[29:25] Applicant had to submit those. Um, and our engineer Ainley,

[29:30] uh, the, um, consulting engineer for the town is working

[29:34] with the Applicants engineer. However, if it does get to

[29:38] that point, there are securities that we can draw on.

[29:42] Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

[29:53] Yeah. I mean, simply put, I just think, uh, there

[29:56] should be a, uh, just the plan tied to it

[29:59] that the lots are specific to what is redlined. Like

[30:01] I don't know, honestly, don't think it's a, any, uh,

[30:04] issue pertaining to the developer, uh, they came in with

[30:07] a specific application. It's to do a specific grading issue.

[30:10] So if we tied it to a site plan or

[30:12] those specific areas or lots, um, simple enough, I just

[30:16] suggest the condition specifying that the variances are as approved

[30:21] are tied to the, uh, redline revisions that were submitted

[30:26] as part of the application. Is that okay, Justin? Three

[30:32] year, Mr. Chair. I'm just going to suggest some language

[30:34] here that I'll get feedback in real time for my

[30:36] senior planner on. It would be resolved that the town

[30:40] of Arian Committee Adjustment hereby approves, semi - variance application

[30:43] A07 - 26. Subject to the following condition that the

[30:48] relief granted shall be limited to the red line revisions

[30:52] to draft plan of subdivision file number 23t, 2102, as

[30:58] submitted with minor variance application A07 - 26. And that

[31:03] would, Jessica, can you provide feedback on that? Is that

[31:05] language sounding okay to you as a condition. Yeah. Could

[31:09] you just repeat it one more time, Justin? Sure. So

[31:12] the condition would be that the relief granted shall be

[31:15] limited to the red line revisions to draft plan of

[31:18] subdivision, file number 23t 21002 as submitted with minor variance

[31:25] application A07 - 26. Yes, that would be fine. Okay.

[31:33] So Mr. Chair, through you, that would still require a

[31:36] mover and seconder and reasons for the committee. But I

[31:39] will just put that forward. As a proposed condition if

[31:43] the committee were desirous of including that. Committee

[31:53] adjustment here might approve some minor variance application A07. That's

[31:58] 26. Sends the applicant means the planning activist for minor

[32:03] variants being. The requested variants that you're concerned. Hang on

[32:09] a second. Sorry about that. DD me to start back.

[32:12] Okay. So be it resolved that the town of your

[32:15] Committee of Adjustment hereby approves a minor variance application A07

[32:20] - 26. With the following conditions. That the relief granted

[32:27] shall be limited to the red line revisions to draft

[32:30] plan of subdivision file number 23t - 21002 as submitted

[32:35] with minor variance application A07 - 26. Thanks, Justin. Um,

[32:41] as the Application meets the planning Act test for minor

[32:46] variants being the requested variance, they're considered minor in nature.

[32:50] The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of or

[32:54] use of the land building or structure, the general intent

[32:57] and purpose of the zoning bylaws maintained and the general

[33:01] intent and purpose of the official plan is maintained. Do

[33:04] I have a mover and secondary for this motion. Yes,

[33:08] member Eltrood, I'll move it. Member Parkinson will second it.

[33:14] All those in favor. Carrie. And I will now adjourn

[33:23] the meeting at, um, 633 PM.

Committee of Adjustment

Agenda

Transcript