[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

Committee of Adjustment - August 10

Transcript