Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-25Clarington Minutes and Decisions of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington As per: The Planning Act, and in accordance with the Provincial Rules of Procedure Thursday, July 25, 2024 Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Preliminary Note This Committee of Adjustment meeting took place in a `hybrid' format. Members listed as being "electronically present," as well as applicants and members of the public, participated though the teleconferencing platform Microsoft Teams, which allows participation through a computer's video and audio, or by telephone. Present: Elissa Kelloway Lucy Pronk Jacob Circo Todd Taylor Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Gord Wallace Wendy Partner Absent with Regrets Shelley Pohjola Brad Whittle Call to Order Meeting Host Secretary -Treasurer Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement The Chair recited the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. Declaration of Interest for Consent Applications Committee Member G. Wallace declared conflict of interest for B2024-0018 due to his place of employment creating the Draft 40R plan. 4. Consent Applications: Minutes — July 25, 2024 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4.1 File Number: B2024-0013, B2024-0014, B2024-0015, B2024-0016, B2024-0017 Owner/Agent: Robert Best on behalf of 1000801308 Ontario Inc. Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 221 Liberty Street N Lot: 10 Conc.: 2 Application: 1. The first set of five applications before the Committee this evening is File (B-2024-0013- to-B-2024-0017) for (221 Liberty Street North, Bowmanville) 2. The purpose of the consent application is to facilitate the creation of 5 new parcels. Part 2 is the retained parcel with a lot frontage of 23.11 metres and an approximate lot area of 730 square metres. The existing house and shed will remain on the proposed retained parcel. The proposed severed parcels include Parts 3-7. Part 3 has a lot frontage of 16.80 metres and approximate lot area of 540 square metres. Part 4 has a lot frontage of 10.11 and an approximate lot area of 320 square metres. Part 5 has a lot frontage of 10.12 metres and an approximate lot area of 340 square metres. Part 6 has a lot frontage of 10.08 metres and an approximate lot area of 340 square metres. Part 7 has a lot frontage of 10 metres and an approximate lot area of 340 square metres. The existing accessory structure on the severed parcels is required to be removed. Part 1 is to be dedicated to the Regional Municipality of Durham as part of road dedication. 3. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from agencies or internal departments. 5. Comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. All written comments received from members of the public came in after the staff report was written and circulated. These comments were forwarded to the Committee members as well as printed and provided in hard copy to those members in the chambers. The opposition from residents highlights concerns regarding a remnant block of land abutting this property, known as Block 40. Block 40 was associated with an abutting plan of subdivision. As well residents expressed concerns with the future built form on the subject lands, the size of the lots, on -site parking, and wanting to see greater intensification of the subject lands. 6. Staff recommend that the application be (approved, subject to the conditions within the staff report). Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 3 Discussion: Interested Party G. Canonaco: Spoke regarding his concerns about Block 40, which is the parcel of land located just north of 221 Liberty St fronting on Redfern Crescent. G. Canonaco feels it has been disregarded in the processing of this application. He then mentions that Block 40 is a noticeable size with 150 square meters in lot area and a 4.14 meter frontage onto Redford Crescent and his main concern is how the block would be left if this application moves forward. He then asks a question, directed towards staff, "how will block 40 remain an empty parcel and a sizable gap between houses forever? Could this parcel be used to its potential and contribute in some way to the neighborhood streetscape? He is also worried this space will remain as a dead space when development begins to occur around it. G. Canonaco also believes that the development in itself would come from this application and is concerned that it does not meet the density required as it should match the R1 zoning requirements, which a majority of the rest of the street holds. He also mentions that the suggested parts fronting onto Redfern Crescent do not suggest "R1" zoning and therefore distort the configuration and patterns of the lots. He clarifies that his question for staff is: "whether or not staff can introduce a condition through the subject application that would require amalgamation or use of block 407' L. Pronk: Confirms, unfortunately, that the condition of a consent application is not an appropriate tool for staff to require anything of adjacent property owners because those aren't the lands that are being considered as part of the application. G. Wallace: States that he received this interested parties concerns minutes before the meeting. He then asks a question directed to staff: "Is there anything about the environmental condition that's a concern for the application?" J. Circo: Informs the Committee that there are no concerns with regards to the previous use of that existing accessory building on the lot. We have received no objections from our Development Engineering Division, Building Division, Fire & Emergency Services Department, or the Regional Municipality of Durham with regards to any contamination of the subject lands. L. Pronk: Adds onto J. Circo's response: "there is a phase one environmental site assessment or a site screening questionnaire that's required by the Regional Municipality of Durham as a condition of the approval. The Region will require that that it is prepared by a qualified professional, meaning that any, potential contaminants or former uses on the site would be flagged through that process and reviewed by the Region of Durham". G. Canonaco: Asks a question directed towards staff: "what will happen to block 40 if the application goes forward? What is the future for block 40?" J. Circo: Responds to Interested Party, G. Canonaco, "Staff understand that Block 40 is privately owned residual land from the Plan of Subdivision to the north and east of the subject lands. We understand that this parcel was retained for future development and was not required to facilitate any type of easement, public use, servicing or road connection. The applicants indicated to Staff that they reached out to the owners of Block 40 to ask if they were interested in selling and that they were not. The Municipality is not involved in the sale of private land, nor involved in agreements between private landowners to redevelop adjacent parcels of land". Minutes — July 25, 2024 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting D. Eastman: States that he is trying to understand the connection. He then asks a question directed towards staff, "Mr. Cononaco was the developer of this and thinks that parcel should be included?" L. Pronk: Responds to D. Eastman's question: "The easement with respect to context, I guess for this comment, my understanding is that Mr. Cononaco is one of the property owners for Block 40 which is associated with the Plan of Subdivision east of the subject lands that are being considered for the consent application tonight. So that Plan of Subdivision exists today. It's already been built out and this is a remnant block that was associated with that overall development. I understand that this block was retained with hopes of future development for it, but it doesn't sound like there's been a resolution reached between the adjacent property owners for its development potential. Which Staff are ultimately, like Jacob mentioned, not involved in". Chair T. Taylor: Notes to G. Canonaco that he can only ask one more question. G. Canonaco: Asks one final question: "What will happen to Block 40 then, once the application goes forward, what can it be used for? Will it remain just an empty piece of land or can it be used towards something else?" L: Pronk: Responds to G. Canonaco: "Staff have not spoken to the property owner of Block 40 about its potential development, potential on its own. It has been a locked parcel of land that's fragmented and left from that Plan of Subdivision. That Plan of Subdivision, frankly, predates me, so I am not sure what the motivation was for that block at the time, but we have confirmed that it's not required for servicing easement access, etc with our Legal Division. You can continue to have conversations with Staff about the fate of that block. As mentioned, it is not Staff's purview to adjudicate the matters between adjacent landowners". Agent R. Best: Addresses and clarifies that he does not want to get into any kind of disagreement with anybody, but the owner of the block was approached to sell, and they said they were not interested in selling. No one was left out. The agent then speaks about the overview of the application and confirms that the applicant has read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff's recommendations. Motion to approve B2024-0013, as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Motion to approve B2024-0014, as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Motion to approve B2024-0015, as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. Motion to approve B2024-0016, as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Noel Gamble. Motion to approve B2024-0017, as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Dave Eastman Minutes - July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 5 Full text of Decision: Proposed consent to facilitate the creation of 5 new parcels. Part 2 is the retained parcel with a lot frontage of 23.11 metres and an approximate lot area of 730 square metres. The existing house and shed will remain on the proposed retained parcel. The proposed severed parcels include Parts 3-7. Part 3 has a lot frontage of 16.80 metres and approximate lot area of 540 square metres. Part 4 has a lot frontage of 10.11 and an approximate lot area of 320 square metres. Part 5 has a lot frontage of 10.12 metres and an approximate lot area of 340 square metres. Part 6 has a lot frontage of 10.08 metres and an approximate lot area of 340 square metres. Part 7 has a lot frontage of 10 metres and an approximate lot area of 340 square metres. The existing accessory structure on the severed parcels is required to be removed. Part 1 is to be dedicated to the Regional Municipality of Durham as part of road dedication. Conditions of Approval: Should the Committee deem it appropriate to approve the application, staff would request that the approval be conditional upon the owner, applicant or agent fulfilling the following conditions: Section 1: General 1. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham concerning the provision of regional services, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Works letter dated July 15, 2024. 2. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Planning and Economic Development letter dated July 16, 2024. 3. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington's Development Engineering Division, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Development Engineering letter dated July 16, 2024. 4. The owner, applicant or agent must enter into a consent agreement with the Municipality of Clarington. 5. The owner, applicant or agent must provide a draft Reference Plan with the application which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department and approved by the Municipality prior to registration; Registration of this Reference Plan is done by the owner, applicant, or agent's surveyor at the expense of the owner/applicant or agent and shall be completed prior to the registration of the consent agreement. 6. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 7. Once all other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall engage their solicitor to provide the Municipality with: Minutes — July 25, 2024 Page 6 Committee of Adjustment Meeting a. The original executed transfer/deed a duplicate original and one (1) photocopy; b. One copy of the registered reference plan; c. An accompanying letter with a request that the severing transfer/deed be stamped Section 2: Planning Requirements 8. The applicant shall ensure that any new lots created through a severance, whether retained or severed, comply with the applicable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63. A rezoning application is required to be approved, final and binding from Municipal Council for the proposed severed parcels (Parts 4-7) having frontage off Redfern Crescent. 9. To ensure that any new lot created through severance, whether retained or severed comply with all applicable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63. Staff will review the registered reference plan once submitted to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions. 10.That the existing accessory structure on Parts 6-7 (proposed severed parcels) is to be removed at the time the 40R plan is to be registered with the Ontario Land Registry Office. 11.That the existing accessory structure on Parts 6-7 (proposed severed parcels) is be removed at the time the 40R plan is to be registered with the Ontario Land Registry Office. The applicant shall pay the Municipality an amount in lieu of conveying land for park or other public recreational purposes under Section 53 (12.1) and (13) of the Planning Act, R.S.O,c.P.13. This payment is equivalent to 5% of the value of the severed parcel. To determine the value of the land, the applicant shall retain a certified Land Appraiser to prepare a land appraisal. Advisory Notes It is the owner, applicant/and or agent's responsibility to fulfill the conditions of consent approval within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act. We will issue no further notice or warning of the expiration of the two-year period. 2. If the conditions for consent approval are not fulfilled within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision and the applicant is still interested in pursuing the proposal, a new consent application will be required. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on B2024-0013, B2024-0014, B2024-0015, B2024-0016, B2024-0017 on July 25, 2024: Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 7 Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman} Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent "Carried" 4.2 File Number: B2024-0019 Owner/Agent: Stanley Arthur Found / Robert Clark Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 2774 Concession Road 6 Lot: 7& 8 Application: 1. The second application before the Committee this evening is File (B-2024-0019) for (2774 Concession Road 6, Darlington) 2. The purpose of the application seeks to permit the severance of a dwelling rendered surplus to a farming operation because of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels. The proposed farm surplus dwelling parcel will be 0.926 hectares and the proposed retained parcel will be 52.87 hectares. 3. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from agencies or internal departments. Staff note that the original circulation of the staff report did not include the department and agency comments as attachments. The comments have since been attached and recirculated and each of the members has been provided a physical copy of the report with the comments, should they require further review. Minutes — July 25, 2024 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 5. Comments were received in support of the application from two members of the public. No comments in opposition to the application were received from members of the public. 6. Staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke to the application. Agent R. Clark spoke provided an overview of the application. The agent states that they and the owner have read and agreed to the conditions of Staff's recommendation. Motion to approve B2024-0019 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Wendy Partner. Full text of Decision: Seeks to permit the severance of a dwelling rendered surplus to a farming operation because of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels. The proposed farm surplus dwelling parcel will be 0.926 hectares and the proposed retained parcel will be 52.87 hectares. Conditions of Approval: Should the Committee deem it appropriate to approve the application, staff would request that the approval be conditional upon the owner, applicant or agent fulfilling the following conditions: Section 1: General 1. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington's Development Engineering Division, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Development Engineering letter dated July 16, 2024. 2. The owner, applicant or agent must provide a draft Reference Plan with the application which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department and approved by the Municipality prior to registration; Registration of this Reference Plan is done by the owner, applicant, or agent's surveyor at the expense of the owner/applicant or agent and shall be completed prior to the registration of the consent agreement. 3. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 4. Once all other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall engage their solicitor to provide the Municipality with: a. The original executed transfer/deed a duplicate original and one (1) photocopy; Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 9 b. One copy of the registered reference plan; c. An accompanying letter with a request that the severing transfer/deed be stamped. Section 2: Planning Requirements 5. Agent/owner is required to submit a zoning by-law amendment application to rezone the retained farm parcel to prohibit future residential uses, to address minimum distance separation, and to address any existing built form zoning deficiencies. In order to clear this condition, a zoning by-law amendment application is to be approved, final and binding from Municipal Council. 6. To ensure that any new lot created through severance, whether retained or severed comply with all applicable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63. Staff will review the registered reference plan once submitted to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions. 7. Staff supports recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated June 7, 2024, by Andrea Gummo & Alex Rowse -Thompson of Heritage Studio. The agent/owner is required to initiate the heritage designation process to designate the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Advisory Notes It is the owner, applicant/and or agent's responsibility to fulfill the conditions of consent approval within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act. We will issue no further notice or warning of the expiration of the two-year period. 2. If the conditions for consent approval are not fulfilled within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision and the applicant is still interested in pursuing the proposal, a new consent application will be required. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on B-2024-0019 on July 25, 2024: Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble _ Shelley Pohjola Absent Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 10 Todd Taylor Gord Wallace No Vote due to Pecuniary Interest Brad Whittle Absent "Carried" 4.3 File Number: B2024-0018 Owner/Agent: Mary Merkas / Cynthia Merkas Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 6157 Solina Road Lot: 24 CON.: 6 Application: 1. The last application before the Committee this evening is B-2024-0018 for (6157 Solina Road, Solina). 2. The purpose of the consent application is to facilitate the creation of a new lot. The existing dwelling is proposed to remain on the proposed retained parcel. The proposed retained parcel will have a lot frontage of 38.40 metres, a depth of 105.39 metres, and a lot area of 4,050 square metres. The proposed severed parcel will have a lot frontage of 18.29 metres, and a lot area of 32,670 square metres. The existing accessory structure that is situated on the proposed severed parcel is to be removed/demolished. 3. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. 4. Comments were received from the Region of Durham Health Department requesting additional information. No other comments in opposition to the applications were received from departments or agencies. 5. Comments were received in opposition to the application by one member of the public and were received before the time of writing the staff report. The opposition from residents consists of concerns regarding the potential for runoff and flooding issues resulting from granting access, as well as the anticipated impact of future development. All opposition comments received were summarized and included in the staff report. Written comments that came in were forwarded to the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration. Minutes — July 25, 2024 Page 11 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 6. Staff recommended that the application be tabled due to Regional Health Comments requesting additional information. It's worth noting that additional revised comments were received from the Region of Durham Health Division on the afternoon of July 25t", 2024. However, Staff have not had a chance to review these comments and have not drafted conditions for the proposed consent application. Accordingly, we are still recommending that the application be tabled. Staff will review the comments to prepare a recommendation to the Committee for the next meeting. Discussion: Interested Party, A. Armstrong: Asks a question directed towards staff. "Is this lot going to be zoned to be residential or is it just sever the lot?" J. Circo: Answers Interested Party A. Armstrong questions: "The application will consist of the "Residential Hamlet (RH)" zoning only, with the permission for one single detached dwelling, and in addition to that, we are not recommending approval at this time for the application, and we are only recommending tabling". L. Pronk: Also mentions that: "we saw and received the email regarding Ms. Armstrong's comments just before the meeting. Given that this application we are recommending that the application be tabled, should the Committee choose to table the application, it'll be brought forward to a future meeting, at which point we'll write a recommendation report, and we could include your comments in that recommendation report and our response to those comments". A. Armstrong: Question directed towards staff. She would like confirmation that she will be notified if this application is brought to the next meeting, then so that we can attend? L. Pronk: Confirms that A. Armstrong will be added as an interested party to this application and will be notified when it is brought back off of the tabling by the Committee of Adjustment. Applicant, C. Merkas: spoke on the overview of the application. She then mentions that they were waiting for comments from the Durham Health Department, which came through today. After reading the comments, they don't have any issues with application. Motion to table the application was then put through. C. Merkas: Asks a question as she does not understand what has happened. She asks a question regarding a tabling fee and next steps. Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 12 L. Pronk: Proceeds to explain Cynthia Markus's questions. Lucy mentions that there is a tabling fee that is associated with the work that then staff must do to prepare for the subsequent meeting. You can have subsequent discussions with Jacob about payment of that fee and anything associated with that and the and in terms of next steps. As Jacob mentioned, we do intend to bring this application back to the next meeting given that we received the comments today. Now that we know that they are here but unfortunately haven't had a chance to review them and prepare the associated conditions for the staff report. Lucy then explains that the two-year tabling is a deadline. It can be tabled for up to two years and so, as Jacob mentioned, we still intend to bring it to the next meeting, barring our review of those comments that were received today and our preparation of the associated conditions for the for the recommendation. The two years is as long as it can possibly take the intention of staff is to bring it much sooner than that. C. Merkas: Would like confirmation that she needs to wait for further emails and communication through Jacob with regards to this matter. L. Pronk: Confirms, that is correct. You can have any follow up discussions with Jacob with respect to process for the subsequent meeting. C. Merkas: Confirms she understands and mentions that her minor variance application will also be tabled. Motion to be table B2024-0018 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Wendy Partner. Full text of Decision: Proposed consent to facilitate the creation of a new lot. The existing dwelling is proposed to remain on the proposed retained parcel. The proposed retained parcel will have a lot frontage of 38.40 metres, a depth of 105.39 metres, and a lot area of 4,050 square metres. The proposed severed parcel will have a lot frontage of 18.29 metres, and a lot area of 32,670 square metres. The existing accessory structure that is situated on the proposed severed parcel is to be removed/demolished. Recommendation: Given the enclosed comments provided by Durham Health Department, staff recommend tabling of the minor variance application, until the associated consent application is brought back to the Committee of Adjustment. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on B-2024-0019 on July 25, 2024: Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 13 Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent "Carried" 5. Unanimous consent from the Committee, to not have a 5 Minute Recess 6. Declaration of Interest for Minor Variance Applications 7. Minor Variance Applications 7.1 File: A-2024-0024 Owner/Agent: Mary Merkas / Cynthia Merkas Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 6157 Solina Road Lot: 24 CON.: 6 Application: 1. The application before the Committee this evening is File A2024-0024 for 6157 Solina Road North. 2. This application proposes a minor variance on the severed lot (Associated Consent Application # B-2024-0018) to reduce the minimum required interior lot frontage for a single detached dwelling from 30 metres to 18.29 metres. 3. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 14 4. Comments were received from external agencies and internal departments. The Regional Health Department comments noted that a site servicing plan is outstanding, and they consider the application incomplete. 5. Comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. The concerns raised primarily revolve around the potential for runoff and flooding issues resulting from granting access, as well as the anticipated impact of future development. 6. Based on the Regional Health comments, Staff recommend that the application be tabled until the associated consent application is brought back to the Committee of Adjustment. Discussion: Applicant, C. Merkas spoke on the overview of the application. N. Gamble: Asks a question directed to staff regarding clarification of a minor to major application. How is 30 meters down to 18.29 minor as this is almost cut in half. How is this minor? L. Pronk: States at this point: "My response would be that staff haven't made a recommendation for you tonight. We haven't given a justification or any criteria with respect to whether the four tests for that application have been met and so feel free to store that question and ask it when we make a future recommendation". Motion to table A-2024-0024 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Gord Wallace. Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0024, for a Minor Variance to Section 9.2.b) on the severed lot (Associated Consent Application # B-2024-0018) by reducing the minimum required interior lot frontage for a single detached dwelling from 30 metres to 18.29 metres, be tabled until the associated consent application is brought back to the Committee of Adjustment. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on A-2024-0024 on July 25, 2024. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Minutes — July 25, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Page 15 Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent "Carried" 8. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, June 27, 2024 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from June 27, 2024, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by Noel Gamble, seconded by Wendy Partner. "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on June 27, 2024, be approved." "Carried" 9. Other Business W. Partner: Asks a question regarding the same applications and why we couldn't do a consent agenda as opposed to doing each one individually. L. Pronk: States that we haven't done that previously with the Committee of Adjustment. Typically, that's just what we do for Planning & Development Committee. This is something for staff to consider and we could discuss with Clerks Division from a process perspective whether that's something that would be appropriate. Chair T. Todd: Also states that from his perspective as chair, that's the way we've done it in the past, but it certainly can be looked at it for future to move things along. 10. Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight's consent application: August 22, 2024. Last Date of Appeal for tonight's minor variance applications: August 14, 2024. Next Meeting: August 29, 2024 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Wendy Partner, seconded by Dave Eastman. "That the July 25, 2024, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned." "Carried" Meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M.