[0:02] All right. And there's Mariam on there.
So, she is in. All right. We're good to
[0:06] go.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[0:10] Welcome everyone. Just uh getting my
notes back here. So, welcome to the uh
[0:17] August meeting of the Township of Witch
Committee of Adjustment. Um before I
[0:22] begin the meeting, I would like to read
a land acknowledgement. The township of
[0:26] Woolitch is located on the lands of the
Halddederman treaty of 1784 within the
[0:31] traditional territories of the Anishnab
Hodeni and the neutral people including
[0:36] the Chinatan or Adawand.
This land is part of the dish with one
[0:41] spoon wampen belt. The dish represents
the land that is to be shared peacefully
[0:45] and the spoon represents the individuals
living on and using the resources of the
[0:50] land in a spirit of mutual cooperation.
Recently, many scholars, individuals,
[0:56] and indigenous people have come to
believe that the dish with one spoon
[0:59] concept can raise awareness regarding
ecological and environmental sustain
[1:03] sustainability.
One of the core values of the concept is
[1:07] that those who use the land should not
abuse the land. In other words,
[1:11] individuals and groups should only take
what they need from the land so that
[1:14] there will be healthy, long-term,
sustainable environment.
[1:18] As a committee, we recognize and
acknowledge the union of peace and the
[1:22] need for a healthy sustainable
environment, the indigenous ancestral
[1:27] garden, guardians of the land and its
waterways, the enduring present
[1:32] presence, knowledge and philosophies of
indigenous peoples, and recognize their
[1:37] continuing contributions to shaping this
area. Today, many meati and indigenous
[1:42] people continue to call this land home.
May we together learn to care for and
[1:47] respect each other and act as stewards
of this land we inhabit together.
[1:55] Okay.
So at this time I will ask if any
[1:59] members of the Oh wrong side. Pardon me.
I will remind the committee and members
[2:05] of the public that this meeting is being
recorded and will be uploaded to the
[2:09] township's YouTube channel at a later
date. Anyone who registered to
[2:13] participate in this meeting will be
invited to speak in the order of the
[2:17] applications being heard. I will now do
a roll call of the committee and staff
[2:21] for the benefit of the public watching
this meeting. When I call your name,
[2:25] please wave at your camera and say here
or present. I, Linda Dixon, am present
[2:29] and chairing this meeting. Tim Cronin.
>> Hi, Mayor.
[2:35] » Chris Fletcher,
>> present.
[2:38] » Steven Hartman,
>> present. and Jeremy K
[2:42] » present.
>> Staff attending today are Sherwin
[2:46] Maloney
>> present.
[2:50] » Victor Lab brush
>> present.
[2:54] » Aaron Whitel
>> present.
[2:58] » And I will also um ask Miriam and I
don't have your full last name so I'll
[3:04] let you introduce yourself very briefly.
>> Yeah. Hi. Hi everyone. Thank you Linda.
[3:08] Uh my name is Mariam and I'm the junior
planner at the township of witch.
[3:13] » Thank you.
I will now provide an explanation of the
[3:17] procedures for this meeting. Each
application will be read by Aaron and
[3:21] she will ask each applicant to make a
brief presentation not to exceed 5
[3:25] minutes.
The committee will be given an
[3:28] opportunity to question the applicant
and any other person who has registered
[3:32] with the recording secretary and is
wishing to address an application either
[3:37] for or against will then be given the
opportunity to speak. Please make sure
[3:42] you have turned on your microphone and
video and identify yourself clearly for
[3:46] the recording secretary. After everyone
has had an opportunity to speak, the
[3:51] committee will make a decision on the
application. Once discussion on your
[3:55] application is complete, please mute
your microphone and turn off your video.
[3:59] You are free to leave the meeting at its
time or remain and listen to the balance
[4:03] of the applications.
Each application being heard today has a
[4:07] 20-day appeal period as required by the
planning act. In accordance with Bill
[4:12] 23, appeals may only be submitted by the
applicant, the municipality, certain
[4:17] public bodies, or specified persons
as defined in the planning act and then
[4:23] the minister. The last day of appeal for
the applications heard today is
[4:26] September 3rd, 2026.
[4:30] Okay. At this time, I will ask any
members of the committee if they are
[4:34] declaring a pecuniary conflict of
interest with any applications.
[4:40] member Hartman.
>> Yes, I am on the uh first application uh
[4:46] A18 2026. The applicant and myself have
a professional relationship.
[4:52] » Okay. Thank you very much.
All right. I will now ask Aaron to read
[4:58] uh the first application.
[5:02] » Thank you, Linda. Okay. First
application tonight. Here we go. is for
[5:08] minor variance A18 20226 for Graham
Snider. Property is at 700 Sawmill Road
[5:15] in Bloomingdale. The current zone in use
is zoned agricultural with hazard land
[5:19] overlay regulatory buffer area and
environmental features from the Grand
[5:22] River Conservation Authority and it
contains a single detached dwelling and
[5:26] multiple farm sheds. The applicant is
proposing the construction of a detached
[5:30] accessory dwelling unit and is
requesting permission to increase the
[5:34] maximum gross floor area as outlined in
section 6.2. 2 of the agricultural
[5:38] zoning regulations from 112 m to
approximately 141 m. The detached
[5:45] accessory dwelling unit is proposed to
be in the form of a modular home to be
[5:49] located to the rear of the existing
dwelling. And on behalf of the
[5:52] applicant, Jed Jefferson from Designed
for Life, Inc. is here to present. Jed,
[5:57] you may go ahead.
>> Afternoon uh chair and committee me
[6:02] members. My name is Jed. I'm with Design
for Life. I'm here on behalf of Graham
[6:05] Snyder regarding the minor variance. Um
the application is requesting an
[6:10] increase of maximum permitted floor area
for the proposed detached accessory
[6:13] dwelling from 112 m to approximately 141
m. The intent is to construct a modest
[6:20] secondary dwelling on what is a a very
large approximately 92 acre agricultural
[6:25] property. The proposed dwelling will be
located behind the existing primary
[6:30] residence and will remain clear clearly
secondary to the main dwelling. We
[6:35] believe the request increase is
appropriate for the property given the
[6:40] size of the parcel, the location of the
proposed dwelling and the significance
[6:44] uh separation from neighboring
properties. The additional 29 square
[6:48] meters will have very little if any
impact on surrounding properties or
[6:52] agricultural character of the area.
We're pleased that the township planning
[6:57] staff have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all four tests
[7:02] for a minor variance and recommend
recommending approval. We also note that
[7:07] the development engineering and the
conservation region of waterlue and
[7:12] other commenting agencies have raised no
objections to this variance. We have
[7:17] reviewed the recommend recommended
conditions regarding the grading and
[7:21] drainage plan and and maintaining the
general location shown on the submitted
[7:26] drawings and we have no concerns with
those conditions. With that, I
[7:29] respectfully request the committee's
approval of this application. Thank you.
[7:34] And I'd happy to answer any questions
you guys may have.
[7:39] » Thank you, Mr. Jefferson, for your uh
presentation. Appreciate it. Committee
[7:43] members, do you have any questions of uh
the applicants resultant
[7:48] agent?
[7:55] I'm not seeing any. Is there anyone else
on this application? Aaron,
[8:02] » sorry. Uh no, there's no members of the
public registered.
[8:05] » Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.
So committee members with that uh how
[8:11] would you like to proceed with this
application? Uh member K.
[8:16] » I move that minor variance application
A18 2026 concerning the subject property
[8:22] uh described as part 70 James Wilson
track part 5 municipally addressed as
[8:27] 700 sawmill road um requesting relief
from section 4.4 for B3 of the zoning
[8:33] bylaw to permit an increase in the
maximum floor area for detached
[8:36] accessory dwelling unit from 112 square
meters to 141 square meters be approved
[8:41] subject to the conditions A and B
written in the staff report
[8:46] » do I have a seconder
member Fletcher
[8:51] thank you before I proceed my apologies
I'm a little out of order here Sherwin
[8:56] anything
>> for discussion
[8:59] » yeah I just wanted to make a note um uh
that uh the the relief is um from
[9:05] section 4.4B
uh as opposed to what was uh sent out in
[9:11] the circulation
um as it was determined that it was more
[9:16] applicable uh to the application. Yeah.
>> Okay. And that doesn't affect anything
[9:22] that we're talking about, right? As
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank
[9:28] you. All right. committee. Any
discussion on the on the motion?
[9:35] Seeing none, all those in favor.
That's carried. So, just a reminder of
[9:41] the appeal period that is uh September
3rd, 2026. Thanks again.
[9:47] Okay,
we're good for the next application.
[9:51] Aaron,
[9:54] » minor variance application A19 2026 for
Ken Balman. The property is addressed as
[10:01] 275 floor Pine Road and the current zone
in use is agricultural zoning with
[10:05] hazard land overlay regulatory bluff
sorry buffer area flood plane and
[10:09] environmental features from the Grand
River Conservation Authority and it
[10:12] contains a single detached dwelling. The
applicant is proposing the construction
[10:16] of a 93 square meter detached accessory
building and is requesting permission
[10:20] for the following section 4.2 2 sentence
E to permit a detached accessory
[10:26] building in the front yard ahead of the
established building line. Section 4.2
[10:31] sentence K1 to increase the maximum
height for any peaked roof building from
[10:36] 4.5 m to approximately 5.79 m. And we'd
like to note that the applicant has
[10:42] amended this ask to be a height of 5.1 m
instead of the 5.79 m. And lastly,
[10:49] section 4.2 to sentence K 3 to increase
the maximum height for any garage door
[10:54] from 3.5 m to approximately 4.26 m. The
proposed new detached accessory building
[11:01] is proposed to be located on the west
side of the property. And we have both
[11:05] Ken Bowman here as long as Rick sorry
along with Rick Hornsby to speak to the
[11:09] application. Rick, if you'd like to
begin, you may go ahead.
[11:13] » Thank you, Miss Wel. Uh, good afternoon
committee chairman, committee members,
[11:17] and municipal staff representatives, and
to any members of the public listening
[11:21] in. As stated, my name is Rick Hornsby.
I am the brother-in-law to the property
[11:25] owner, Ken Bowman, and I will be
assisting Ken, the property owner, for
[11:30] this adjustment uh, hearing. Thank you
for uh, reviewing his minor variance
[11:35] application. As said as um as you know
the uh property owner would like to
[11:40] construct an accessory building on his
property for home garage and storage
[11:45] purposes for the garage to be large
enough for his personal requirements.
[11:49] Some relief is necessary under the
current municipal bylaws. Ken, the
[11:54] property owner is requesting relief from
uh section 42E to permit a detached
[12:01] building in the front yard ahead of the
established building line as the primary
[12:06] residence is not parallel to Flora Pine
Road. The proposed accessory building is
[12:11] a considerable distance from the
residence and the site view of the
[12:15] proposed building from the primary
residence will be blocked by a number of
[12:20] coniferous trees and the proposed
building location was chosen and deemed
[12:25] by the Grand River Conservation
Authority
[12:29] to the property owner is also requesting
a relief from section 4.2K1 2K1 to
[12:35] increase the maximum height for any peak
roof building from 4.5 m to
[12:40] approximately 5.1 m. This increase in
height and roof pitch of the proposed
[12:45] accessory building is required to
confirm with uh conform with and with
[12:51] the size of the building in order to
conform with pre-engineered building
[12:54] plans as well as to accommodate a taller
garage door at the end of the building.
[13:00] As noticed as noted in some of the f
photos you may have seen um with the
[13:05] application, the neighboring property uh
to the west has tall gable industrial
[13:11] buildings with large garage doors.
Number three, the property owner is
[13:15] requesting relief from section 42K3
uh to increase the maximum height of the
[13:21] garage door from 3.5 m to approximately
4.26 m as uh the 4.26 two six meter or
[13:30] 14 foot height doors required to enable
storage of recreational travel trailer.
[13:35] As most of you are probably aware, uh
today's recreational travel trailers are
[13:40] much taller due to increased tire sizes
and roof mount vents and air
[13:44] conditioners. So, uh a 3.5 meter door is
will not accept an RV trailer. At this
[13:52] time, I am open to questions from the
committee or municipal staff
[13:55] representatives.
[14:01] That was Oh, thank you. Thank you.
Sorry, I just got a really buzz bad buzz
[14:05] in my headphones. Sorry, Mr. Hornsby.
Thank you for your presentation. Uh, did
[14:09] Mr. Bowman want to make any comments or
[14:18] » No, I think we're good to go.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
[14:22] Committee, do you have any uh questions
of Mr. Hornsby
[14:27] or Mr. Bowman.
[14:32] Okay. I'm not seeing any uh Sherwin.
>> Uh no further questions from ST um no
[14:40] further comments from staff.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[14:45] Um is there anyone from members of the
public on this application? Aaron?
[14:52] » No, there's nobody registered.
>> Okay. All right. So, thank you. So,
[14:56] committee members, how would you like to
proceed?
[15:02] Member Hartman,
>> I would like to proceed by moving the
[15:06] recommendation
that minor variance application A19 2026
[15:12] Ken Balman concerning the subject
property described as GCT part 93
[15:18] municipally addressed as 275
Flor Pine Road requesting one relief
[15:24] from section 4.2E of the zoning bylaw to
permit a detached accessory building in
[15:30] the front yard. two, relief from section
4.2K
[15:35] I of the zoning bylaw to permit an
increase in the maximum height of a
[15:39] detached accessory building with a
building with a peaked roof from 4.5 m
[15:44] to 5.1 and three relief from section
4.2K
[15:50] 3 of the zoning bylaw to permit an
increase in the maximum height of the
[15:54] garage door from 3.5 m to 4.3 m.
uh may be approved subject to the
[16:01] following conditions as written A, B,
and C.
[16:06] » Okay, thank you. Uh may I have a
seconder?
[16:10] Member Cronin.
[16:14] Any discussion on the motion?
[16:20] Okay, not seeing any. All those in favor
of the motion
[16:26] and that's carried as well. So just a
reminder that there is the uh September
[16:30] 3rd appeal period date on that
application and again thank you for
[16:34] attending.
>> Thank you uh chairman and committee of
[16:37] adjustment and municipal staff uh the
property owner and I appreciate your
[16:41] time and consideration in this matter.
Thank you.
[16:43] » Okay.
>> Have a great evening.
[16:45] » Thank you. You too. Okay. Aaron
sign.
[16:50] » Yep. [clears throat] So next we have
sign variance application SV12026
[16:55] for Sners Flats GP Inc. Property is
addressed as 1040 Snider Flats Road in
[17:00] Bloomingdale. [snorts] The current zone
in use is zoned commercial C2 with sight
[17:04] specific provisions in section 16.254
and the property contains commercial
[17:10] building. The applicant is proposing the
installation of a pylon sign on the
[17:14] property and is requesting relief from
section 2 sentence AA of the sign bylaw
[17:19] to permit the sign face below the
minimum required clearance of 2.4 m. The
[17:24] proposed sign face will have
approximately 0.9 m clearance from the
[17:28] ground. And Donna Thompson is here from
Pride Signs Limited to speak on behalf
[17:33] of the application. And Donna, I have
requested to unmute you.
[17:39] There you go. All right, you may begin.
>> Hi, I'm Donna Thompson, the senior
[17:43] permit coordinator for Pride Signs, uh,
representing for Vandal Construction.
[17:48] Um, they're proposing a double-sided
pylon sign and again
[17:53] um, we're seeking clearance.
According to the bylaw, you're supposed
[17:57] to have at least 2.4 m clearance. We're
seeking relief from that to have uh,
[18:02] zero clear 0.9 clearance. The proposed
sign will have a monument style base and
[18:08] it's the pylon sign will contain a
multi-tenant commercial devel um for
[18:12] multi-tenants
for the businesses occupying the site.
[18:16] We feel that the proposed sign designed
um is to provide effective way finding
[18:22] and tenant identification for the
customers, visitors, delivery services
[18:26] and emergency respondents.
Without the centralized identification
[18:32] sign, locating individual individual
tenants within the development may be
[18:36] challenging, particularly for those
visiting first time to the site.
[18:43] Um
with this variance it solely relates to
[18:48] the clearance and does not relate to the
overall height and sign area or
[18:53] illumination.
The reduced sign clearance creates
[18:56] visibility is creates a visually
integrated feature that complements the
[19:00] architectural character of the new
development. This sign is also carefully
[19:05] been designed to function as a site
entrance feature rather than a
[19:08] traditional
elevated pole sign. As a result of this,
[19:13] the proposed will enhance the overall
appearance of the property and
[19:17] contributes positively to the existing
landscape.
[19:23] Um the requested again the requested
variance solely relates to the clearance
[19:27] below the sign.
Um
[19:31] and that's pretty much it that I have
for that.
[19:40] I don't know if anybody has any
questions.
[19:42] » No, thank you. Thank you for your Thank
you for your presentation. Sorry, I was
[19:46] trying to get my audio on mute.
Appreciate that. Uh com members of the
[19:50] committee, do you have any questions for
for Donna?
[19:57] Okay, I'm not seeing any. Um Sherwin,
[20:02] » any comments?
Uh staff has uh no further comments uh
[20:07] and are here for any questions.
>> Okay. Any questions of our planner?
[20:14] » Jeremy.
>> Hi. Thanks uh through you. A question
[20:16] for the staff. Uh, and this is not so
much with this specific application, but
[20:20] maybe just from my understanding. Um,
with the monument base, the the
[20:25] clearance seems slightly strange to me
anyway because like I'm looking at the
[20:28] image and the application process,
the clearance is also not visible. Um,
[20:34] so here I I'm fine with this
application, but just could you expand
[20:38] on that a little bit and what like is
that typically allowed or what are we
[20:42] actually kind of approving here?
>> Yeah.
[20:46] Yeah. um through through the chair to um
committee member um um um Jeremy. Um
[20:55] yeah. Uh so the clearance is really for
um
[21:00] uh um so that uh signs are at a an
appropriate height so that it can't so
[21:09] that um
uh so that vehicles that are by can um
[21:17] you know can physically see it uh while
driving by. In this case, um you know,
[21:23] it's it's appropriate for this type of
development. Um
[21:29] this uh this type of development is
mainly for um uh it appears to be um
[21:36] commercial or uh office industrial
um development. And um it it's not
[21:44] really going to um impact uh drivers as
they drive by. It's really intended for
[21:52] the tenants of uh the future tenants of
this building. Um whereas a pylon sign
[21:58] would uh typically advertise um uh the
businesses within the commercial plaza
[22:03] or um um in some cases an industrial
plaza. Uh so in and uh so that's really
[22:12] what the uh clearance uh is for so that
there's a minimum height so uh view um
[22:18] drivers uh that are uh driving by can
you know um can see uh as well as um in
[22:26] some cases it's uh the the pylon sign is
to be uh set back uh a certain distance
[22:33] from the uh visibility triangle as well.
So that in commercial plazas if you're
[22:39] if you're exiting um you can you can uh
visually see oncoming traffic as well.
[22:45] So that's the that's the intent behind
it. Um if that helps
[22:52] » thank thank you Sherwin
member K is a follow I guess I think
[22:57] where I'm are just confused is the
clearance here doesn't the clearance
[23:01] here to me looking at that seems to be
zero.
[23:04] I see what you're saying now when you
look at it. So what they're saying is
[23:07] when they pointed out 0.9 clearance,
that's the clearance from below where
[23:12] the tenant signage is. I when you add
the monument portion of it, then really
[23:18] there is no clearance. I when I look at
the drawings now that I see what you're
[23:22] saying.
>> Yes. I think my question is just to
[23:25] staff is like do we need to actually
approve zero or is the bylaw really
[23:28] written as just the sign and then the
base is is just up to the
[23:34] person building the sign.
>> Um
[23:38] » I think
>> I I think I need to see uh [laughter]
[23:44] see the I could maybe comment on as
well.
[23:48] » Go ahead. Go ahead Victor.
>> If I may. Yeah, I think as Sherwin had
[23:51] mentioned um the the height sort of
clearance is sort of twofold going to
[23:57] the sighteline uh matter. You can
imagine a car typically the driver is
[24:02] sitting 3 to four feet above grade I
guess and looking through if it's a
[24:07] single pylon like a typical pylon that's
really not a sight obstruction. Uh but
[24:12] the clearance ensures that there's not a
sight obstruction. They can actually if
[24:17] there was two sort of two pillars
holding up the sign like if you would
[24:21] envision in this case you could see
through that. But because there's a
[24:25] solid base here that that could obstruct
that the sight lines. In this case we
[24:30] looked at it though and it does it is
set back from the site triangle. So
[24:36] there's no sight uh impediment as a
result of this this design. Um and I
[24:41] think the other part of the sign bylaw
is yeah ensuring that the
[24:46] you see many signs where they have
multi-tenants sort of listed in a banner
[24:51] as I think the applicant mentioned u
like parallel when they go up the sign I
[24:55] think in this case there some
opportunity for that um and ensuring
[25:00] that you know the ones that are sort of
at the bottom level have the same
[25:04] exposure as those at the top visually um
it's not a guarantee but that's sort of
[25:10] the premise behind the minimum clearance
of 2.4 meters is to allow visibility of
[25:15] all po components of the sign. If the
developers here and I and I actually did
[25:20] this site plan application for Vandal,
so I'm quite familiar with the property.
[25:24] Um they have got approval and this sign
um I I would compliment them on this
[25:30] sign. It's certainly um certain it'll be
a stately sign as part of their business
[25:35] and complement the business architecture
very well.
[25:39] um another reason behind us supporting
it.
[25:44] » Uh
so just to add
[25:47] » sure I'll let you go first. Yep.
>> Um uh so uh I think I I I I get what
[25:55] you're trying to say uh committee member
um um K. Um so the the sign clearance um
[26:03] is to um is to the bottom of the the
sign. So uh in this case um
[26:11] » the written portion. Yeah.
>> The written portion. So that's what
[26:13] you're trying to get at. Okay. So yeah.
Um and and that's uh it's not a really
[26:19] um so it it is um again twofold. It is
for visibility but again it's also for a
[26:28] minimum height for a sign copy to be
visible for drivers.
[26:36] Okay. So in this case we're looking at
the minimum sign clearance to the bottom
[26:42] of a signed copy.
Okay.
[26:47] » Member member K.
>> Thanks. That answers my question. If
[26:50] you're comfortable with 0.9 then I'm I'm
good too. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any
[26:56] other committee members with questions
of staff or the applicant again?
[27:04] Okay. Seeing none, how would you like to
proceed?
[27:09] Member Fletcher.
Uh I'll take a kick at this one. So that
[27:15] sign variance application SV012026
[27:21] Snider Slats GP Inc. concerning the
subject property described as James
[27:26] Wilson track part 6 uh registered plan
58R213
[27:33] parts 8 and 21 addressed as 1040 uh
Snider Slats in Bloomingdale requesting
[27:41] relief from uh the sign bylaw section
2.9 AAA to permit a minimum sign
[27:50] clearance for a physical sign from 2.4 4
m to 0.9 m above the finished grade and
[27:57] that it be approved and then it's
subject to one two three four conditions
[28:02] as listed in the staff report.
Okay. Thank you. Member Fletcher
[28:07] seconder
member Cronin.
[28:12] Any further discussion on the motion as
presented?
[28:17] Seeing none, all those in favor?
That's carried. Okay.
[28:24] There the appeal period on that Aaron
or is that
[28:32] » um actually that's a good question.
>> Okay.
[28:35] » It looks
[28:39] that would be Vic. Do you know that N?
Of course Ner.
[28:45] Uh I don't think this applies because
this is through the municipal act and
[28:50] this uh is not a planning app is not uh
through the planning act.
[28:54] » Thought so. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. Thank you again,
[28:58] Donna, for your presentation. Appreciate
it.
[28:59] » Thank you very much. Bye now.
>> Okay.
[29:03] » So Aaron, last committee or last um
conditions revisions.
[29:09] » Yes.
>> Application please. So the final
[29:12] application is an amendment for consent
applications B5 67 and 8 2025 for
[29:19] Maryhill Development Inc. The property
is located at 64 St. Charles Street West
[29:24] in Mary Hill. The current zone in use is
zoned agricultural and residential R1
[29:29] and the property contains a single
detached dwelling, farm sheds, and a
[29:33] livestock operation.
Consent applications B5 through 8 2025
[29:38] were approved in November of 2025 for
the creation of four new residential
[29:43] lots within the settlement boundary of
Mary Hill and the residential R1 zoned
[29:47] portion of the property at 74 St.
Charles Street West subject to a number
[29:51] of conditions. The applicant has advised
that relocation of the existing gas
[29:55] service, hydro connection, and driveway
required to facilitate the creation of
[29:59] lot number one has proven to be more
complex than initially anticipated.
[30:04] As a result, the applicant is requesting
the following changes to the current
[30:07] approved conditions to permit the
creation of three new residential lots
[30:12] rather than four.
B5 of 2025, this application to create a
[30:17] residential lot is being withdrawn.
Then remove conditions three and four of
[30:22] consent approvals B6 2025, B7 2025, and
B8 2025 as outlined below and reumber
[30:30] the conditions accordingly to read.
Number three, that prior to final
[30:34] approval, the owner applicant in
association with the appropriate gas
[30:37] utilities authority fully relocate the
existing gas service on the retained
[30:42] lands or an easement be granted to
maintain access rights to the existing
[30:46] service to the satisfaction of township
of. And number four, that prior to the
[30:50] final approval, the owner applicant in
association with a NOVA power fully
[30:55] relocate the existing hydro service on
the retained lands where an easement be
[30:58] granted to maintain access rights to the
existing pole line to the satisfaction
[31:02] of the township of Wulwitch. And finally
to amend condition number 11 and it may
[31:06] be rem sorry as may be renumbered of
consent approvals B6 2025 B7 2025 and B8
[31:14] 2025 to read as follows thereby removing
reference to consent approval B52025
[31:20] will be number 11 that a letter of
undertaking be provided by the
[31:24] applicant's lawyer that the new lots
created through consent applications B6
[31:28] 2025 to B8 2025 will be registered
simultaneously and onh half of the
[31:34] application, we have Harry Zu from
Arcadus Professional Services Canada
[31:37] Incorporated to speak to the amendment.
Harry, you may begin.
[31:44] » Well, thank you Erin uh yeah for read
out uh for the notice and I know this is
[31:48] a relatively long one and just give me
one second. I think uh I think Erin's
[31:54] like introduction has already covered
most of the uh important information. I
[31:58] will just share the screen and then uh
show the site show the application plan
[32:02] again.
[32:06] Uh Erin, do you want to confirm that if
you can see the the actual severance
[32:11] plan?
>> So we can see the plan that's on the
[32:14] screen. Yes.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you for that. Uh
[32:17] yeah so um yeah so basically uh as Erin
uh stated like firstly my name is Harry
[32:23] Drew urban planner from archetis and uh
uh again thank you for uh having having
[32:28] me in this meeting and then uh what we
bringing here today uh is actually the
[32:31] amendment of the previously approved
application uh previously uh as Aaron
[32:36] stated there were four application B05
and uh 06 7 and 8 2025 and now
[32:43] originally we were creating four lots
like lot one lot two, lot three and lot
[32:47] four. And you can see one of the law
actually covers the current existing
[32:51] dryway. And then uh you have it has uh
things confirmed with the innova power
[32:56] and also the embbridge gas as well that
the hydro line and also the gas line is
[33:01] also running pretty much parallel and
the near adjacent to the uh existing
[33:05] driveway as well. So therefore those
condition that has been asked to remove
[33:10] uh so has been asked to remove is
actually related to relocation of this
[33:14] dryway hydroland and also the gas lands
and the original proposal was that we
[33:20] have to bypass all these four lots and
connect it out of the settlement bound
[33:24] uh area boundary here. Um after the
approval from last November, we uh we
[33:30] have since actively talking to different
including consultant, builder uh and
[33:36] also Innova Power and Bridge gas as
well. And then we have and it has come
[33:39] to our conclusion and funding that uh um
it is actually uh to relocate the the
[33:46] the hydro and embbridge gas is actually
way more complex uh than originally
[33:51] anticipated uh due to the fact that we
actually need to involve uh high voltage
[33:57] connection uh due to the connection
point and that would require uh a
[34:01] specialized builder uh that's more more
particular than the typical builder that
[34:06] we can uh use and also Enbridge gas will
also have to involve their contractor as
[34:11] well to just build a new line and
connect it to the main line like on
[34:14] Sancho Street West. And uh uh since that
this project has becoming uh I would say
[34:21] uh financially not preferable or
feasible for the property owner any
[34:25] further. And it has also come to our uh
finding that uh for the existing
[34:30] farmhouse in the rear portion uh in the
agricultural land. uh it will be
[34:35] actually be more beneficial and also for
the benefits of the house that to
[34:40] continue to provide this straightforward
connection for dryway hydropole and
[34:45] embbridge gas to the uh to the central
street. Um that's why we have talked to
[34:50] the staff and uh come to this uh
combination of request and condition
[34:54] removal uh which include the withdrawing
of the application that originally sever
[35:00] this first lot but maintaining the rest
three applica uh the severance
[35:04] application and then the condition three
and four are related to the relocation
[35:09] of hydropole and embbridge gas is
removed because uh the continuous exist
[35:14] uh the continued severance of um like 06
6 07 and 08 2025 does not involve any
[35:21] hydropole and ambush gas relocation
staff. And uh the last condition removal
[35:27] uh to my understanding is to make sure
that the three laws can be registered
[35:32] together but then uh just excluding the
fourth lot. Um yeah, it has come to my
[35:38] understanding that uh uh uh this still
continue to represent uh uh good
[35:44] planning and also the most feasible uh
solution and the minimal impact to the
[35:49] to the surrounding neighbor um as well.
Um I think that will sum up my uh my
[35:55] brief introduction and uh any question
I'm here to answer.
[36:02] » Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for
your presentation Mr. Zoo. Appreciate
[36:06] that. Um and and clarifying that with
the uh with the map as well as exactly
[36:10] what you're what what lot we're
confirming. Committee members, any
[36:15] questions?
[36:20] Okay. I'm not seeing any. Sherwin, any
comments?
[36:27] And staff has no further comments. Uh
there's any questions, I'm available to
[36:33] answer them. Yeah.
Okay. Committee. Um Erin, just before I
[36:38] proceed, any There's no one else to
speak for this application.
[36:43] » No members of the public are in
attendance.
[36:46] » Okay. Thank you. All right. So,
committee members, how would you like to
[36:49] proceed?
[37:00] » Member Hartman.
just unmute myself here. I would move uh
[37:06] the recommendation
um that consent application be 052025
[37:12] Mary Hill Development Inc. concerning
the subject property described as GCT
[37:17] part 81 registered plan 58 R13010
part one municipally addressed as 74 St.
[37:25] Charles Street West Mary
be withdrawn at the request of the
[37:31] applicant
a and I will further say as written in
[37:36] the recommendation
[37:40] if that's okay because Aaron you have
read it out already.
[37:46] » Would you like me to read it madam
chair? No, I was just thinking, do you
[37:50] need us to quickly address any of the
conditions or that's sufficient for your
[37:54] purposes, Erin?
>> I think that's sufficient for mine
[37:57] because I do have them um Nancy had them
split or sorry, as one resolution. If
[38:02] you did prefer to split them, we can.
But e either way, it works.
[38:06] » No, I'm I'm good. Okay. And I have a
seconder for that motion.
[38:11] » Member K. Okay. Any final discussion on
the motion before we proceed?
[38:20] Seeing none, all those in favor
and that's carried. Thank you very much
[38:28] for your uh
>> for your presentation. Appreciate it.
[38:32] » Thank you very much. Yeah. Have a nice
evening.
[38:34] » Thank you. You too.
All right. So, approval of minutes from
[38:39] the June 8th, 2026.
Are there any comments to make on the
[38:45] minutes before we proceed with a motion?
[38:50] Seeing none, do I have a motion to
approve the minutes from June 2028 as
[38:54] circulated?
>> Member Cronin,
[38:59] » I'll move that they're adopted as
presented.
[39:03] » Seconder
[39:08] member Hartman.
[39:12] Any discussion?
No. All those in favor?
[39:18] carried.
All right. Okay. Anything further?
[39:24] Erin, I know Nancy mentioned something
about some
[39:29] many applications for September.
>> Yes, I was going to say we do have Nancy
[39:33] left a note here that so yes, the July
meeting had been cancelled. No
[39:36] applications. Uh there was already or
sorry, I think this is old. This is from
[39:41] June, but yes, we do have Sherwin is it
four for September already?
[39:45] Um I think it's uh three right now 555
Isabella is coming back um just so
[39:51] you're aware and um there's um two other
applications in there.
[39:56] » Yeah. And there's one for October
already too I believe.
[40:00] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Or Nancy at least been talking to
[40:02] somebody about October. So
>> All right.
[40:06] » Erin, when is that meeting in September?
>> Yes, you are away for September. I do
[40:10] have that noted here.
>> Thank you.
[40:11] » Yeah. holidays
>> and that's the 14th, right? Just to
[40:16] confirm.
>> Pretty sure it's the 14th.
[40:19] » Uh, yes.
>> Yep. Okay. All right. Thank you
[40:24] everyone. Um that's it and we'll uh join
the