Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-23CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 905-623-3379 www.clarington.net February 5, 2025 Raymond and Melanie Moulsdale 2816 Regional Road 20 L1C 6V4 Dear Raymond and Melanie Moulsdale, Re: Notice of Decision File Number: Minor Variance A-2024-0053 Owner: Raymond and Melanie Moulsdale Address: 2816 Regional Road 20, Darlington The attached Minutes set out a true copy of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment as concurred by a majority of the members at the Committee of Adjustment Hearing on January 23, 2025. All information filed in respect of the application for consent is available upon request. Please Note: Section 45(12) of the Planning Act has been amended and now indicates that only the applicant, the Minister, a specified person, or any public body may appeal this decision. If you have any questions regarding the application or the procedures for appeal, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned, at 905-623-3379 ex. 2660 or by email at cofa@clarington.net Thank you, Akibul Hoque Acting Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Planning and Infrastructure Services Municipality of Clarington Attachment 1: Appeal Procedure Attachment 2: January 23, 2025, Committee of Adjustment Minutes The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net Procedure for Appeals to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment The applicant, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a specified person or public body that has an interest in the matter may, within twenty days following the date of the meeting, appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) against the decision of the Committee by serving personally on or by sending by registered mail to the Acting Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment a Notice of Appeal setting out the objection of the decision and the reasons in support of the objection, pursuant to Section 45(12) of the Planning Act. Take notice that an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in respect to all or part of this Official Plan Amendment may be made by filing a notice of appeal with the Clerk either via the Ontario Land Tribunal e-file service (first- time users will need to register for a My Ontario Account) at https://olt.gov.on.ca/e-file- service by selecting Municipality of Clarington as the Approval Authority or by mail to 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 3A6., no later than 4:30 p.m. on February 12, 2025. The filing of an appeal after 4:30 p.m., in person or electronically, will be deemed to have been received the next business day. The appeal fee can be paid online through e-file or by certified cheque/money order to the Minister of Finance, Province of Ontario. If you wish to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) or request a fee reduction for an appeal, forms are available from the OLT website at www.olt.gov.on.ca. If the e-file portal is down, you can submit your appeal to clerks@clarington.net. If, within such twenty days from the day of the Committee of Adjustment Meeting, no Notice of Appeal is given, the decision of the Committee is final and binding and the Acting Secretary-Treasurer shall notify the applicant and shall file a certified copy of the decision with the Clerk of the Municipality of Clarington. Note: The Planning Act provides for appeals to be filed by a “specified person or public body”. A specified person means, (a) a corporation operating an electric utility in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, (b) Ontario Power Generation Inc., (c) Hydro One Inc., (d) a company operating a natural gas utility in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, (e) a company operating an oil or natural gas pipeline in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, Page | 2 (f) a person required to prepare a risk and safety management plan in respect of an operation under Ontario Regulation 211/01 (Propane Storage and Handling) made under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, if any part of the distance established as the hazard distance applicable to the operation and referenced in the risk and safety management plan is within the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, (g) a company operating a railway line any part of which is located within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, (h) a company operating as a telecommunication infrastructure provider in the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply; (“personne précisée”), (i) NAV Canada, (j) the owner or operator of an airport as defined in subsection 3 (1) of the Aeronautics Act (Canada) if a zoning regulation under section 5.4 of that Act has been made with respect to lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the airport and if any part of those lands is within the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, (k) a licensee or permittee in respect of a site, as those terms are defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Aggregate Resources Act, if any part of the site is within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, (l) the holder of an environmental compliance approval to engage in an activity mentioned in subsection 9 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act if any of the lands on which the activity is undertaken are within an area of employment and are within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, but only if the holder of the approval intends to appeal the relevant decision or conditions, as the case may be, on the basis of inconsistency with land use compatibility policies in any policy statements issued under section 3 of this Act, (m) a person who has registered an activity on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry that would, but for being prescribed for the purposes of subsection 20.21 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act, require an environmental compliance approval in accordance with subsection 9 (1) of that Act if any of the lands on which the activity is undertaken are within an area of employment and are within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, but only if the person intends to appeal the relevant decision or conditions, as the case may be, on the basis of inconsistency with land use compatibility policies in any policy statements issued under section 3 of this Act, or (n) the owner of any land described in clause (k), (l) or (m). Page | 3 A “public body” means a municipality, a local board, a hospital as defined in section 1 of the Public Hospitals Act, a ministry, department, board, commission, agency or official of a provincial or federal government or a First Nation; (“organisme public”). On an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, the Tribunal may hold a hearing of which notice shall be given to the applicant, the appellant, Acting Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee and to such other persons or public bodies and in such manner as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal may dismiss the appeal and may make any decision that the Committee could have made on the original application. The appeal must be accompanied by the appropriate fees prescribed by the Ontario Land Tribunal, in the form of a cheque payable to the Ministry of Finance, Province of Ontario. The last day for receiving Notice of Appeal: February 12, 2025 Notice of Appeal should be sent to the Acting Secretary Treasurer and Clerks Department. Akibul Hoque Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Planning & Infrastructure Services Department cofa@clarington.net (905) 623-3379 ext. 2660 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, January 23, 2025 Time: 6:30pm 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 Meeting Host Sarah Parish Secretary-Treasurer Tyler Robichaud Acting Secretary-Treasurer Shrija Vora Acting Secretary-Treasurer Nick Gibson Acting Secretary-Treasurer Todd Taylor Chair Dave Eastman Member Gord Wallace Member Shelley Pohjola Member Brad Whittle Member Absent with Regrets: Noel Gamble, Wendy Partner 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement The Chair recited the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. Declaration of Interest for Consent Applications Gord Wallace: B2024-0040, B2024-0039 and B2024-0036 Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. Consent Applications: 4.1 File Number: B-2024-0042 (X-Ref LD2023-034, LD2023-036, A2024-0003) Owner/Agent: Bob Best Staff: Tyler Robichaud Address: 1712 Nash Road, Courtice Application: The purpose of the application is as follows: Legacy consent application LD2023-0036 is being lifted from the table in place of LD2023-0034 which has been withdrawn by the applicants. LD2023-0034 received provisional consent on July 10th, 2023, and subsequently all conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the former approval authority and the Municipality. Technical errors in the original application form prevented the applicant’s final deed from being stamped. The purpose of this application is to amend the errors in the legal description noted on the original application form. The effect of the application remains the same; to sever a 704.6 square metre semi-detached building lot and to retain a 704.6 square metre semi-detached building lot from an existing 1,506.88 square metre parcel of land. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public Staff recommend that the application be lifted from the table and approved subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, Bob Best, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to lift from the table and approve B-2024-0042 (x-ref LD-2023-034, LD2023- 036, A2024-0003) as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Dave Eastman Time approved: 6:41pm. Full text of Decision: B. Whittle: “That application B2024-0042 for the creation of new lot, having reviewed and considered all the agency comments and all written submissions, I hereby move that the application be approved as applied for subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report.” Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 3 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. The owner, applicant or agent must submit a draft Reference Plan which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions and to be approved by the Municipal Staff prior to registration. Registration of the draft Reference Plan shall be completed 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. 2. The applicant is required to provide the Municipality of Clarington with a clearance letter issued by the Region of Durham stating that all Regional conditions (Planning and Works) have been satisfied/fulfilled. 3. The owner, applicant or agent must enter into a consent agreement with the Municipality of Clarington. 4. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 5. 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; 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 6. 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 1. 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 to 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-2024-0042 on January 23, 2025. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 4.2 File Number: B-2024-0036 Owner/Agent: Mint Capital Management Inc. / Mitch Morawetz Staff: Tyler Robichaud Address: 5800 Main Street, Orono Application: An application for consent was received in October 2024. Planning Act Section 53(14) requires the committee to make a decision within 90 days after the day the application is received by the Municipality. Because the application requires a third party peer review through the Regional Health Department. Staff are recommending the subject application to be tabled for a period of up to two years to account for the additional time required to complete the Hydrogeological Study peer review and to adhere to the Planning Act timeline. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public Staff recommend that the application be tabled for a period of up to two years until January 2027 subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 5 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: Two members of the public, L. Wheeler and E. Jardin, requested clarification of the location and date the public notice signage was posted to the property. Staff responded that the signage was posted on the subject property on January 9th, 2025, in close proximity to the front property line fronting Main Street. The agent M. Morawetz confirmed the precise location where the signage was posted on the property. The agent, M. Morawetz, spoke and provided an overview of the application. Including their future plans to submit subsequent consent applications pending a peer review of their Hydrogeological Report by the Region. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to table B-2024-0036 for a period of up to two (2) years until January 2027 as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Dave Eastman Time approved: 6:58pm. Full text of Decision: B. Whittle: “The application B2024-0036 for the creation of new lot, having reviewed and considered all the agency comments and all written submissions, I hereby move that the application be tabled” 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-2024-0036 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace PECUNIARY INTEREST Brad Whittle “Carried” Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 6 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4.3 File Number: B-2024-0039 Owner/Agent: Grey Joy Corp. (John Welsh) / David Pearce Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 34 King Ave East, Newcastle Application: The purpose of the application is to seek consent to facilitate a lot line adjustment that would result in 822.4 square meters of lot area being transferred from 34 King Avenue East to 34 Beaver Street North. Public notification was not conducted in accordance with the Planning Act, as the appropriate signage notifying of the application was not picked up and installed by the applicant on the subject site 14 days prior to the Committee meeting. However, a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site was sent by the Municipality. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; Staff recommend that the application be tabled for a period of up to 60 days to allow proper public notification meeting the Planning Act requirements. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, David Pearce, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to table B-2024-0039 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. Time approved: 7:04 pm Full text of Decision: Seeking consent to facilitate a lot line adjustment that would result in 822.4 square meters of lot area being transferred from 34 King Avenue East to 34 Beaver Street North. 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-2024-0039 on January 23, 2025. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 7 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner ABSENT Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace PECUNIARY INTEREST Brad Whittle “Carried” 4.4 File Number: B-2024-0040 Owner/Agent: Hyangsook Chang and Keunkoo Lee/ David Pearce Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 222 King Street East, Bowmanville Application: The purpose of the application is to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot. As proposed, both the severed and retained parcels (Part 1 and 2 on the draft reference plan) will have 12.34 metres of lot frontage, an average depth of 50.48 metres, and a lot area of 623 square metres. The existing dwelling will be demolished. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; Staff recommend that the application be (approved, subject to the conditions within the staff report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Jim Wallace spoke and clarified that the portion is to be transferred from 240 King Street E and merge with 222 King Street E, to which the Staff has agreed. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to approve B-2024-0040 as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved: 7:10 pm Full text of Decision: Seeking consent to facilitate a lot line adjustment that would result in 260 square meters of lot area being transferred from 240 King Street East to 222 King Street East. Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. 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. 2. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 3. Once all other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall engage their solicitor to provide the Municipality with: d. The original executed transfer/deed a duplicate original and one (1) photocopy; e. One copy of the registered reference plan; f. An accompanying letter with a request that the severing transfer/deed be stamped. Section 2: Planning Requirements 4. Agent/Owner is required to submit a copy of the registered transfer deed. 5. 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. 6. 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 2% 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. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 9 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Advisory Notes 1. 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 to 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-2024-0040 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner ABSENT Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace PECUNIARY INTEREST Brad Whittle “Carried” 4.5 File Number: B-2024-0041 Owner/Agent: Jasbeer Johal Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 119 Liberty Street S, Bowmanville Application: The purpose of the application is to seek consent to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot. As proposed, both the severed and retained parcels (Part 1 and 2 on the draft reference plan) will have 12.34 metres of lot frontage, an average depth of 50.48 metres, and a lot area of 623 square metres. The existing dwelling will be demolished. 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 – January 23, 2025 Page 10 Committee of Adjustment Meeting No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; Staff recommend that the application be (approved, subject to the conditions within the staff report. Discussion: One member of the public spoke regarding this application. Mrs. Hunter: Mrs. Hunter, a resident of 121 Liberty St., expressed concerns regarding the proposed demolition of the neighboring 150-year-old home. She emphasized its structural integrity and potential for adaptive reuse rather than demolition. She also raised concerns about traffic safety on Liberty St., potential dust and noise disturbances, loss of privacy, and the historical significance of the garage on the property. Additionally, she noted that the property had not been well maintained by the owner and questioned the accuracy of property boundaries, requesting a survey clarification. Jasbeer Johal: The applicant, Mr. Jasbeer Johal, clarified that while the property had been previously listed for sale, the current intent is to sever the lot and build two single-family homes. He stated that the property had been cleaned up following the tenants’ departure and assured compliance with all demolition and building regulations. He also confirmed that a licensed Ontario surveyor conducted the survey and that all required safety and engineering protocols would be followed during demolition and construction. The owner, Jasbeer Johal, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to approve B-2024-0041 as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved: 7:35 pm Full text of Decision: Seeking consent to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot. As proposed, both the severed and retained parcels (Part 1 and 2 on the draft reference plan) will have 12.34 metres of lot frontage, an average depth of 50.48 metres, and a lot area of 623 square metres. The existing dwelling will be demolished. Conditions of Approval: 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 January 10, 2025. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 11 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 2. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Works Department, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Works letter dated January 15, 2025. This is to be confirmed by obtaining a clearance letter from the Region’s Works Department and submitted to the Municipality. 3. That the applicant is required to obtain an entrance permit from the Region of Durham for an additional entrance off Liberty Street South to accommodate the creation of a new lot. 4. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Planning and Economic Development Department, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Planning letter. This is to be confirmed by obtaining a clearance letter from the Region’s Planning and Economic Development Department and submitted to the Municipality. 5. The owner, applicant or agent must submit a draft Reference Plan which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions and to be approved by the Municipal Staff prior to registration. Registration of the draft Reference Plan shall be completed 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. The owner, applicant or agent must enter into a consent agreement with the Municipality of Clarington. 7. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 8. 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; 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 9. Agent/owner is required to submit a minor variance application to seek approval from the Committee of Adjustment for a reduction in the minimum required lot frontage as per Section 12.2.b) i). In order to clear this condition, the minor variance application is to be approved and become final and binding after a 20- day mandatory appeal period. 10. The applicant must demolish the existing single detached dwelling on the existing parcel; a demolition permit is required prior to forwarding a clearance letter to the Region for the land severance application. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 12 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 11. 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 1. 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 to 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-2024-0041 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner ABSENT Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 5. A 5 minute recess from 7:36-7:41pm 6. Declaration of Interest for Minor Variance Applications 7. Minor Variance Applications Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7.1 File: A-2023-0036 Owner/Agent: Nikki Rondeau / Matthew Helfand Staff: Sarah Parish Address: 3698 Skelding Road, Clarke Application: The purpose of this application is to vary section 4.4.1 of Zoning By-Law 2005-109 to permit a single detached dwelling on a lot that does not have frontage on and access to a street. 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. Comments were received from external agencies and internal departments for this proposal and they have been appended to the report. One member of the public has contacted Staff regarding this proposal. The individual expressed their concern with access being provided to other homes on Skelding Road. Staff recommend that application A-2023-0036 for a variance to section 4.4.1 of Zoning By-Law 2005-109 be denied as it does not meet the 4 tests of a minor variance and there is significant Staff concerns with this proposal. Discussion: Mathew Helfand (agent): We disagree with the recommendations of staff, and we are requesting that the minor variance application be approved. The applicant is seeking a variance to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on the property. The property at 3698 Skelding Rd. Skelding Road is west off of Hwy. 35/115 and the staff report identifies an issue with section 4.41 of the Zoning By-law. It prohibits the erection of a building unless it has frontage on a public highway, and we're seeking relief from that rule. Skelding Road is an unopened and unassumed highway in the municipality. But that doesn't mean that it's not legally a road for access. It is owned by the municipality. Legal access exists, and in fact there are already several properties on Skelding Road that are developed for several uses, including residential uses. To understand this application and the permissions that we’re seeking, it's important to go back in time for just a minute if you'll bear with me. An important date, which is November 15th of 2001 that's the day that the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Protection Act came into effect. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 14 Committee of Adjustment Meeting That's an important date to understand regarding the permissions for this lot, because the basic premise is that if a use was permitted at the time the plan came into force on that date in November 2001, it was permitted. It continues to be permitted now. And if it was not allowed then then it is not allowed now. So effectively there is a grandfathering. And so, I think there's really two questions with respect to this application that I'd like to put before the committee, which is the first whether or not a dwelling was permitted in the zoning by law on that date in November 2000. Staff report says it was not; I disagree with that. The second question is whether, on the basis of good planning, the house that's proposed should be permitted. And I think that this encapsulates really the four tests. So, the Official Plan, and this is set out in the report, allows one single detached dwelling on the lot, subject to criteria being met, and one of those criteria is that the use was permitted on that date. November 15th of 2001. Now I submit, as I said, a single detached dwelling was permitted on that day and here's why. The bylaw in effect at the time bylaw 84-63 zone, the subject site agricultural. We agree with staff on that point. There's a section in that bylaw section 3.8(d), which says this “private Street: A building or structure may be permitted on a lot, which has frontage on a private street.” Now it's important to know the definition of private street, if you look at it is not one that's in private ownership. What it says is that a private street, shall mean a street or road, other than an improved public street and this is what Skelding road is according to the bylaw. Thus, a building or structure may be permitted. If it has frontage on a private street substitute private street with Skelding Road that is the permission that we're relying on and so we submit that a single detached dwelling was in fact permitted on that key date in 2001, which means that it's not prohibited by the Official Plan. Then looking at the general intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, single detached dwellings are permitted in this zone, subject to criteria, and I think the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan are maintained by allowing this property to be developed. Then in terms of that second question that I put before you, are the tests minor and desirable met. Is it good planning? And I think those tests are satisfied. What is being proposed is minor and desirable, and I have three main reasons for that. The first is that there are already other houses on Skelding Road, so we're not setting an undesirable precedent by building a residential dwelling here. The existence of those dwellings proves that Skelding Road can accommodate some development. And what's proposed at these single detached dwellings will not create any negative impact on any surrounding lands and will not create a negative impact on the road or any neighbor or any properties or people who use the access now. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 15 Committee of Adjustment Meeting It's also not desirable to simply freeze these lots in time and never have them be developed. It's also not desirable to simply freeze these lots in time and never have them be. These are legal lots that were created and exist today. If the Committee rejects this application, it's basically saying these lots should just be frozen in time and never developed. And I don't think that that's desirable. I think in the climate that we're in in a housing crisis, opportunities to find land that can be built is desirable, and that's what the committee should be looking for. Finally, I would respond to a key point in the staff report which is with respect to the building code. There's a comment in the staff report which states that there is a building code compliance matter, and I don't think that that's relevant to this application. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, this is about the four tests and not about whether this can comply with the building code. And so, I don't think that those considerations are relevant. I think if we do get to that phase, we can address them in the ordinary course. But I don't think it should be considered here. So, the notion in the staff report that services can't access this road I think with respect is incorrect because we already have multiple houses on this lot. 3710 is an existing house, we have 3551 which is a house in a machine shop and 3570 which is another existing house. So, if those ones can be adequately serviced, those are taxpayers who are paying for services then this one works too. This is a road that exists. It's not currently maintained, but it can work, and my client is committed to making it work to build some houses on these property. We think it is a good proposal. For these reasons, we think that the minor variance meets the four tests and that this application should be approved and I'm very happy to field any questions from committee. Chair: Thank you very much for your comments. I will ask the committee to submit any questions that they might have for the applicant. We have a question from Gord. Gord Wallace: Had a question to the Committee on the process of checkerboarding and the creation of lots created in 2008. Sarah Parish: Prior to the Planning Act coming into play, there was the ability for people to give away pieces of land without going through a consent application process through the Municipality or at a higher level. It was called checkerboarding. Since then, we have consents and now you have to do it legally through a Planning Act application and there must be deeds and a legal process as well. As Mathew (the agent) alluded to, they are legal lots, but they are not fronting on to an open and maintained road. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 16 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Gord Wallace: You're right, checkerboarding ceased to exist in the 1970s or early 1970s. I'm not sure if there's anybody old enough in the room to comment on that, but checkerboarding does not apply here. It seems to me that these lots went through the process of land division for the creation of the lots to build houses on. Sarah Parish: To my knowledge, these lots were created around 1965. They were done prior to checkerboarding ceasing. Gord, if there is something that you can share with us to show that they've gone through land division process please do. However, having talked to our legal staff, they were created in 1965 prior to checkerboarding ceasing and municipal consents being required to create new lots. Chair: How about Gord’s statement to the reference plan being deposited in 2008? Sarah Parish: That I can’t speak to. Chair: Okay. Any further questions from the Committee? Gord Wallace: *Gord wrote in the chat that the lots were in fact created through checkerboarding prior to municipal consents being required but is not sure why the plans were deposited in 2008. Sarah Parish: Is the applicant able to speak further to Gords comment? Mathew Helfand (Agent): Yes I can speak to that. In fairness to Staff, I don't dispute the description of how these laws were created. Did do some historical digging into it. It was created before subdivision control, which is accurate. We think though the issue of grandfathering isn't actually about the creation of the lots itself, it’s about what permissions existed at the time. We submit that there was a point in time where we were allowed to build single detached lots, single detached dwellings on and on an unassumed road, and that permission did go away, and I took each of the references in the zoning bylaw. I think if I could just respond to the totality of the comments, I do recognize staff’s position here. I can't say it's totally unreasonable for them to say that it shouldn't be on an unassumed road, but we think that if you look back historically, we did have that permission. What my client had discussions with staff about was the potential for cost sharing or development agreement to bring this road up to standard. And so, if the committee is interested in the notion of having these lots come online and turn into houses. What I would ask is, rather than making a decision, but if you're not ready to approve this, defer this, send it back for us to have a conversation with staff to see if we can come up with an agreement on whether there's some sort of caution that could be done to maintain these roads so that these lots can be built. Otherwise, I think we do have this undesirable situation where we have these lots that were created in the legal process do exist, could be built on and the precedent is there that houses do exist, otherwise these would be stuck forever in time, and we really don’t think that’s a good scenario. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Chair: Okay thank you. I believe that Sarah Parish would like to respond to that. Sarah Parish: So, I just want to respond to the fact that unfortunately, I will just say respectfully, that's incorrect. The 2001 date is when the Oakridge's Moraine Zoning By-law did come into place. Prior to that coming into place, the property was zoned agricultural, and we did only have one by law in place at that time, which was 84-63. If you take a look at Section 3.8 of Zoning By-law 84-63, it states that no building or structure shall be erected in any zone unless a lot fronts on to an improved public street maintained year round, which unfortunately this property does not. So even prior to that 2001 date, there wouldn't have been the ability to build upon this lot. In terms of the cost sharing, there were comments from our Development Engineering division that spoke to this. They said “The Municipality will not permit new construction on properties with no access to an opened Municipal right-of-way. The Municipality currently has no plans to improve and/or extend Skelding Road.” We did also speak to our legal staff prior to this meeting, obviously because this is a little bit of an unprecedented variance and unfortunately the municipality will not permit new construction on properties with no access to an open municipal right of way. Obviously we are more than willing to go back and have further conservations but this variance proposed was not well received during the previous conversations I’ve had with the individuals that would be making that call. Chair: Okay thank you Sarah. So, I do understand that the applicant is not in agreement, and that Sarah has stated her position. But I will entertain more questions based on those comments. Dave Eastman: Is it possible for the applicant to approach the municipality of having a road opened and maintained, and then brining this back to the Committee? Sarah Parish: So even if the road was opened and maintained, we still own that portion of the road. I'm not sure if it would be so much of a cost sharing agreement or if individual would have to take over maintaining the road. Dave Eastman: *to the agent* - You know, laws change, and safety becomes a factor based on the comments in the staff report. So, what was good in 2001 may not be acceptable in 2025. Mathew Helfand (Agent): Respectfully, I think the existence of these dwellings on Skelding Road speaks to the contrary, which is that they are operating, and that it can work. And the question of safety, yes, is paramount. But when we're looking at the question of the minor in the four tests, I think. Is it desirable to have these lots just stuck in time? And I think the question of safety and whether we can create an appropriate fire route. And to deal with the building code compliance issues that are identified in the report. I think we can do that, but the domain of the committee respectfully through you, Mr. Chair, is the four tests and that we submit that it is appropriate and it's desirable and meets the four tests. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Chair: Are there any further questions from the Committee? At this point, I'd like to turn it over to the Committee for a motion, please. Motion to deny Application A-2023-0036 as recommended by Shelley Pohjola, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time denied 8:07pm. Full text of Decision: That application A2023-0036, for a Minor Variance to Section 4.4.1 of Zoning ByLaw 2005- 109 to permit a single detached dwelling on a lot that does not have frontage on and access to a street be denied, as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, or Zoning By-law 2005-109, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is not minor in nature. 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-2023-0036 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner ABSENT Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.2 File: A-2024-0046 Owner/Agent: Ken Beitz Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 6 Vetzal Court, Courtice Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 19 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Application: The purpose of the application is to legalize the existing accessory structure to encroach into the interior side yard setback from 0.6 metres to 0.36 metres. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. Although, the applicant did not pick up their sign so proper signage on the property was not completed. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. Comments were received in opposition to the application from two members of the public. The nature of the concerns was grading and drainage issues, and for fire and safety concerns regarding the BBQ shelter. The comments were received before the writing of the staff report. Staff recommends that application A2024-0046 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 be tabled for a period of up to 60 days because we were unable to meet our statutory Planning Act timelines as the applicant did not pick up their sign. Discussion: Chair: Thank you for the introduction, Nick. I understand that the recommendation is to table some members of the public have commented. I would just make sure that any members of the public who did attend tonight and wanted to comment. Please come forward or unmute and address the committee. You will have 5 minutes to speak. Please state your name and address to be recorded in the minutes, and if you're in the chambers, please write your name and mailing address on the sign in sheet at the podium. Is there any members of the public in the chambers that wish to speak? Seeing none, and I understand from our host that there isn't anyone online, but I'll just confirm. Elissa Kelloway: None, Mr. Chair. Chair: In understanding, there's no members of the public online. I'll turn it over to our applicants. Can the applicant please come forward or unmute and address the committee again. You will have 5 minutes to speak. Please state your name and address to be recorded in the minutes. Please advise if you've read and agree with the conditions and recommendation of staff and if you have anything further to add. Is our applicant with us tonight, Nick? As far as you know? Nicklaus Gibson: No, I don’t believe so. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 20 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Sarah Parish: Through you, Mr. Chair, if I could just make a quick comment on this. Just to Dave's point earlier about the tabling fee. So, the tabling fee for the minor variance applications. Excuse me is $310 and we will be asking this individual to pay that fee cause this will be the third time it will come back to committee either in February or March. And there has been some difficulties in communication with the individual, obviously as kind of seen here tonight. We will be asking for that fee. So obviously it is within your right to choose to do so or not but if you could put that as part of your motion. Dave Eastman: When I asked that question offline, I was referring to the consent motion. Is there a tabling fee for both? I did not know that Sarah Parish: Through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, there is. There's a $5 difference between the two fees, and this done through our finance department, but yes it is $310. Dave Eastman: And the tabling fees, when applicable, should be part of the motion. Sarah Parish: Yes. Dave Eastman: Thank you. Chair: Thanks for the clarification, Sarah and Dave. Are there any further questions before we proceed? Dave Eastman: I know it was mentioned the staff report there was a by-law complaint. Is this application because of that, or was there some disposition of that by-law complaint? Nicklaus Gibson: Through you, Mr. Chair, this did start as a bylaw complaint and progressed from there. So, when this application first got to the committee, I believe in October. We asked the individual to please send a revised site plan. He did not, and because we did not have a committee of adjustment meeting in December. I asked this individual to please send us a revised site plan before December 13th, which was the deadline for this month's meeting. We did not receive that site plan, and he did not meet that deadline. Although, he did send us those revisions after the deadline so that’s another reason why we're tabling this application yet again. Because we did not receive those revisions for the revised site plan that included the other accessory structures that he didn't bother to include on his original site plan. Dave Eastman: Setbacks that are referred to here sound like they're from the property line from the fence rather than the property line. Is there actually a survey that's been used to determine the variance required from the property line and not the fence? Nicklaus Gibson: Through you, Mr. Chair, no there has not been a survey done for this application. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 21 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Dave Eastman: Okay, so we’re kind of being asked to look at this without really understanding what the exact variances are. Nicklaus Gibson: When the by-law officer went and did a site visit, she measured the distance from the existing BBQ shelter to the property line she measured. She measured it to be 0.36 meters, which is what the variance is for. Dave Eastman: Did they know where the property line was? Did they assume that the fence was the property line? Do you know? Nicklaus Gibson: I don’t know. Dace Eastman: I see that staff's recommending this application to be tabled. Is that something that could be addressed before it comes back to us? Like in other words, determine where the actual property line is and have a survey to confirm. Nicklaus Gibson: I’ll defer to Sarah, if that’s okay. Chair: Yes, Sarah, you can comment but I’d say that we can put that in the motion if we as the Committee so chooses. Sarah Parish: Yes, so if the Committee chooses that can definitely be a part of the motion. I will say that we’ve had some discussion and resources that have been brought to our attention that Staff could use to make sure that we are measuring from the actual property line, and not the fence cause we do understand that it’s usually thought that the fence is the property line but that’s not always the case. So, yes, you can make that apart of your motion and Staff will do some further investigation with the individual. Dave Eastman: So, can we make a motion for the applicant to get a survey done? Sarah Parish: Yes. Dave Eastman: Okay thanks. The agent, Ken Beitz, was absent and did not attend the Committee meeting. Motion to table A-2024-0046 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. Time approved: 8:17pm Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0046 for a minor variance to section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to legalize the existing accessory structure to encroach into the interior side yard setback from 0.6 metres to 0.36 metres be tabled for a period of up to 60 days to allow for further discussions between the applicant and staff to acquire more information from the applicant to gain a better understanding of the accessory structures and buildings that were not identified on the materials that were submitted, and to confirm if there are any additional variances required for this application, and that a lot survey be provided to show the property line. A tabling fee of $310 is payable online within 30 days of today’s meeting. Failure to pay the required fee may result in denial of this application. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 22 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 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-2024-0046 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.3 File: A-2024-0047 Owner/Agent: Niko Anastassakis / Lonny Gibson Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 3883 Tooley Road, Courtice Application: The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of an accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted accessory total floor area from 90 square metres to 136 square metres and by increasing the maximum permitted accessory building height from 4.5 metres to 5.5 metres. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments, and no comments were received from members of the public. Staff recommends that application A2024-0047 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1.c) by facilitating the construction of an accessory structure by increasing the maximum permitted accessory total floor area from 90 square metres to 136 square metres, and by increasing the maximum permitted accessory building height from 4.5 metres to 5.5 metres be approved. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 23 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: No members of the public spoke for this application. The agent, David Lange, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Chair: Are there any questions from Committee members for this application? Hearing and seeing none. Can I please ask the Committee for a motion please. Motion to approve A-2024-0047 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved: 8:22pm. Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0047, for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1.c. by facilitating the construction of an accessory structure by increasing the maximum permitted accessory total floor area from 90 square metres to 136 square metres, and by increasing the maximum permitted accessory building height from 4.5 metres to 5.5 metres be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63 and the Clarington Official Plan, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. 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-2024-0047 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner ABSENT Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 24 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7.4 File: A-2024-0050 Owner/Agent: 13296415 Canada Corp / Katrina Metzner Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 11 Duke Street, Bowmanville Application: The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the provisionally approved severed lot (associated consent application # B- 2024-0035) by increasing the maximum permitted front yard setback from the established building line from 8.14 metres to 28.85 metres, and by decreasing the minimum required front yard soft landscaping from 47% to 35%. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. Comments were received in opposition to the application from one member of the public in the form of a letter. The nature of the concerns was for the condition and health of the trees on the property, in addition to grading and runoff issues. The comments were received after the writing of the staff report. Staff recommends that application A2024-0050 for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2.1 b. i) b) and section 12.2.1 d. ii) of Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Discussion: Deborah Russo (IP): My name Is Deborah Russo, and I’m the resident who wrote the letter to the Committee. I just moved in a year ago, so when this process started I was not in the area. When this application was heard on November 28th, 2024, I believe that I did not get the notice cause of the postal strike and was not aware of any meeting. I did receive the notice two weeks after the meeting, and I did contact Jacob Circo. Spoke with him regarding my concerns, and he did forward the plans and the minutes from the November COA meeting and told me that I could submit a letter for this month’s COA meeting. My main concerns are for the trees at the back of the property. I understand that if they are encroaching on their side, they may trim them. But my main concerns are when they start digging and what they are going to do to the roots of those trees. That’s my privacy back there, and I’m also on the low side of their lot so I am concerned about the grading issues as I already have water issues in my basement. The other concern I have are the parking issues, especially at this time of the year with snow removal and I have no idea of where they are going to put the snow. Those are my main concerns and I would like them to get addressed. Thank you. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 25 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Chair: Thank you very much for your comments and I’ll get you to sign in there. Are there any questions for this member of the public from the Committee? Dave Eastman: This question is actually for Staff. So those concerns would likely be addressed at the building permit process? Nicklaus Gibson: Through you, Mr. Chair, so I’ll be able to address her concerns with the grading. The Development Engineering Department did not have any objections to this application, and one of their conditions speaks to grading. So during the building permit stage, the applicant must provide a detailed lot grading plan and servicing plan that conforms to the Municipality of Clarington’s Design Guidelines. The grading plan must demonstrate that there’s no impact on any adjacent properties. Dave Eastman: Does that help satisfy your concerns? Deborah Russo (IP): I don’t know. My main concerns are water issues, because I understand from speaking to my neighbours that a lot of us have water issues in our basement. We are apparently sitting on a number of springs and aqueducts, and yes I am concerned about the problems that could arise from this. The agent, Katrina Metzner, spoke and provided an overview of the application. Katrina Metzner: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Committee members. My name is Katrina Metzner, and I’m the agent for this application. We have read the conditions and are in agreement with the Staff report. For the public comments, I’ve already been in contact with the Development Engineering Division with the grading plan process, and it has since been approved by the Engineering Division. We will have to look at the trees on the property, but I’m pretty sure the location of the building will not impede the trees and the neighbouring properties. The agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Chair: Okay thank you for your comments. Are there any questions from the Committee for this application? Dave Eastman: Yes, Mr. Chair. This is a question that I would like to direct to Staff. We’ve had so many applications for this particular property, and I was just wondering how this application is still minor in nature. Nicklaus Gibson: Through you Mr. Chair, so I’m assuming that you read the minor in nature section in the Staff Report and that you are not in agreement with our position? Dave Eastman: Yes, in the totality of the applications that we’ve had on this property I’m not in agreement with Staff. Nicklaus Gibson: Could I ask what specifically from the minor in nature section? Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 26 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Dave Eastman: I don’t think it’s minor in nature cause I don’t believe it’s an appropriate development for this neighbourhood. I drove all along there, I’ve been through the parking lot for the existing structure, and I think I could have imagined a better use of the property than what they are proposing in order to accommodate the number of units that the applicant would like to have on the property. Nicklaus Gibson: Through you Mr. Chair, with regards to parking there are no issues. There are four parking spaces provided on the severed lot, and four parking spaces provided on the retained lot. There’s two ADU’s on both the severed and retained lots and are both shown on the site plan. For each ADU that is being proposed, one additional parking space is required and therefore the minimum parking requirements are met. Dave Eastman: The minimum parking requirements may be met but only till we get another snow storm. I’m not sure if you’ve been to the property lately, but they keep plowing snow in there and there’s going to be a problem. Brad Whittle: This is just a comment towards Staff. I would like to speak in opposition to the requested variances, as I don’t believe that this application is minor in nature nor does the development on the lot continue to keep within the established neighbourhood. I believe when determining an application is minor in nature, one must consider the potential impact the variances may have on the surrounding neighbourhood. While each variance before the Committee today may be minor on their own, along with the addition of today’s variance failed to meet the tests and the requirements of being minor in nature. For those reasons, I will not support this application. Chair: Okay, thank you for your comments, Brad. Any further questions from the Committee members online? Okay I’m seeing none. Are there are further comments from the applicant? Katrina Metzner: Yes, I would just like to address the comment on the amount of minor variance applications. The original application for consent had to be taken back from the original agreement cause of the property owner to the north. There was the laneway on the north side of 9 Duke Street, and a small portion of 7 Duke Street to have a proper drive aisle. But that fell through which then led to the creation of the driveway on the severed lot on the south side to allow for access for those existing units. Chair: Okay thank you for your comments. Hearing no further questions, may I please hear from the Committee for a motion please. Brad: I’ll make a motion that application A2024-0050 be denied as it does not maintain the general purpose and intent of the Clarington Official Plan and is not minor in nature. Chair: Can I have a seconder for that motion? Seconded by Dave Eastman. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 27 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Chair: Shelley said no, Dave said yes, Gord said no, Brad said yes, Chair Todd said no. Motion to deny Application A2024-0050 did not pass. I will ask that we potentially ask for another motion. Can somebody make another motion? Shelley Pohjola: I’ll make a motion that application A2024-0050 for a minor variance to section 12.2.1 b. i) b) and section 12.2.1 d. ii) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the provisionally approved severed lot (associated consent application # B-2024-0035) by increasing the maximum permitted front yard setback from the established building line from 8.14 metres to 28.85 metres, and by decreasing the minimum required front yard soft landscaping from 47% to 35 be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. Motion to approve A-2024-0050 as recommended by Shelley Pohjola, seconded by Gord Wallace. Time approved: 8:40pm Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0050 for a minor variance to section 12.2.1 b. i) b) and section 12.2.1 d. ii) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the provisionally approved severed lot (associated consent application # B- 2024-0035) by increasing the maximum permitted front yard setback from the established building line from 8.14 metres to 28.85 metres, and by decreasing the minimum required front yard soft landscaping from 47% to 35 be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. 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-2024-0050 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 28 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7.5 File: A-2024-0053 Owner/Agent: Raymond and Melanie Moulsadale Staff: Akibul Hoque Address: 2816 Regional Road 20, Darlington Application: This application proposes a minor variance to facilitate the addition to an existing accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total accessory floor area for all accessory structures from 120 square meters to 235 square meters. 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. Comments were received from external agencies and internal departments for this proposal. However, at the time of writing this report, comments were outstanding from the Durham Works Department. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. Staff recommend that the application be denied as it does not meet the four tests of minor variance. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, Melanie and Raymond Mulsdale, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and do not agree with Staff and their recommendations in the report. Melanie Mulsdale (Owner): We moved from Ajax a few years ago and moved to the country. Unfortunately, we have outgrown our storage space, and we each have a summer jeep that we park indoors. We have a boat, two jet skis, and a lot of equipment to maintain a 5-acre parcel of land. We have snow blowers, lawn mower, and all these things require storage and space to store them. We have a small shed in the back, and we plan to remove that. We’re currently using carports, which is not ideal as there’s a big wind coming from CLOCA and behind us. The carports are getting destroyed each and every year, so we are looking for more permanent structures to house all of our needs and to have some curb appeal. Chair: Okay thank you for your comments. Committee members, do you have any questions for our applicant? Any committee members online that have questions for the applicant? Dave Eastman: *Dave had a question for the applicant, but Staff or the video and transcript did not pick this up* Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 29 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Melanie Mulsdale (Owner): We have an attached three-car garage. Inside the garage, we have one jeep, plus our son’s hockey equipment that we store in there, and a workshop that houses the other jeep and the back area for tires, winter tires, fishing equipment, etc. We are also planning to remove the one shed, which would downsize the total floor area. For the yard maintenance equipment, we don’t want to be leaving it outside and have our place looking like a junk yard. Even though you can’t see it from the road, we want people to come up to the house and want it to look nice. There are no plans for anyone to live there, and we are just seeking to have an area to store our stuff, so it looks nice. We invest a lot of money in our vehicles and equipment, and we don’t want them outside. Chair: Okay thank you for your comments. So, what we have before us is to deny the application, and the only alternative to that is to table the application. Is that something that you would entertain or thought of? Melanie Mulsdale (Owner): We did scale back the size, we originally put a loft in it, and we removed the loft because the main purpose of the storage is for the vehicles. Although, a little section of the loft would be used for things like Christmas decorations and those kinds of things. Before we started this, we spoke to CLOCA and they indicated the original plans and the location of the detached structure would be encroaching into a water table, and so we followed his recommendations. He then said that he has no issues with the square footage, but he did recommend that you move it away from the water table and move the structure further back. We’ve been in contact with CLOCA since then, and they said that there’s no concerns. Chair: Were there any interactions with Planning in terms of trying to meet the requirements so that we didn’t get the report that we have in front of us today? Melanie Mulsdale (Owner): Yes, I did speak with Akibul Hoque, and he recommended that I put an extension to the house. Unfortunately, we don’t need more living space. We have two children, one drives and he’s 23 years old, and the other one who is 15 years old is going to be driving soon as well. Chair: Okay thank you for your comments. We have no further questions, so I will now turn it over to the Committee to make a motion please. Dave Eastman: Before we make a motion, I would like to ask Staff that if we were to table this application, is there any purpose in that? Are there any alternatives? Akibul Hoque: Through you Mr. Chair, so previously we had a conversation with the applicants regarding the size of the proposed accessory structure, and we did come up with different solutions in terms of reducing the height and floor area of the proposed accessory structure. However, the floor area exceeded the maximum permitted floor area of 120 square meters and the variance overall did not meet the four test. Chair: Sorry but I will have to cut you off, we can’t hear you. I will defer to Sarah to try and help us here. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 30 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Sarah Parish: Through you Mr. Chair, and Akibul you can jump in at any time and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you are speaking to the fact that unfortunately based on the four tests of a minor variance, the size and scale of the existing house and the proposed accessory structure that is so close in size, it does not meet the intent of the zoning by-law. It’s also not minor in nature and as it’s detailed in the report, it unfortunately does not meet the four tests but we’re welcome to have discussions back and forth if you’re willing to go down on the size. Chair: So, folks, what I’m hearing from Staff is that if you were to make adjustments on the size then we table this application for now and come back when those discussions have been had. Raymond Mulsdale (Owner): Does the Committee have a recommendation size? Chair: No, that decision wouldn’t be up to the Committee. The Committee is responsible to discuss what variances are brought before us, so that would be up to you to work with Planning to rework the information before us and to come back to the Committee at a future date. Melanie and Raymond Mulsdale (Owners): Yes, we would like to try and make the adjustments so that everyone is happy. It’s storage and we don’t want our yard to look like a junk yard. Chair: Okay that’s good then. I understand that you are willing to make some adjustments that will help the Committee make their decision. Thank you. Dave Eastman: If we were to deny this application now or table this application now, and hopefully those discussions will be fruitful in the next 60 days. Sarah Parish: Through you, Mr. Chair. The applicants got our contact information and if they’re open to have that conversation with Staff, it will be better to table the application for 60 days rather than to pay the fees and going through the whole process from the beginning. Melanie Mulsdale (Owner): Yes, we are in agreement. Motion to table Application A-2024-0053 for 60 days as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. Time approved: 8:54pm Recirculation fee is not required. Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0053 for a Minor Variance to Section 4.1.3 of Zoning By-law 2005- 109 to facilitate the addition to an existing accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total accessory floor area for all accessory structures from 120 square meters to 235 square meters be tabled for a period of up to 60 days to allow for further consultation between Staff and the applicant. 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-2024-0053 on January 23, 2025. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 31 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.6 File: A-2024-0057 Owner/Agent: Amanjot Singh / Manpreet Kohli Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 40 Prospect Street, Bowmanville Application: The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling unit by reducing the minimum interior side yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.12 metres, and by reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.63 metres. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. Comments were received in opposition to the application from one member of the public. The nature of the concerns was grading and drainage issues. The comments were received before the writing of the staff report. Staff recommends that application A2024-0057 for a Minor Variance to section 3.2 f. ii) b) within Zoning By-law 84-63 be tabled for a period of up to 60 days to allow for Staff consultation with the applicant and to ensure that all variances are captured accurately. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 32 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: The agent, Manpreet Kohli, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Manpreet Kohli (Agent): We have already provided the required information to the Planning Department. Additional information about the drawings and the additional variances required and we want this to be heard in this meeting if this is possible. Nicklaus Gibson: Through you, Mr. Chair. This application is being tabled as the applicant did not submit elevation drawings or floor plan drawings by Friday, December 13th which was the deadline to submit materials for this month’s meeting. He submitted the materials on the following Monday, and therefore did not meet the Planning Act timelines as it was an incomplete application. That’s the reason why we are tabling this application. Chair: So, I understand that this application before us is to table to sort some issues out, and I encourage you to speak to Nicklaus Gibson tomorrow after this meeting is over to convey any other issues that you may have. This will allow the application to come back to the Committee. Manpreet Kohli (Agent): Okay that’s fine, but please don’t charge us any tabling fee because we did provide the information. Chair: Any questions from the Committee to the applicant? I’m seeing none, so I’ll ask for a motion please. Motion to table A-2024-0057 as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved: 9:03pm Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0057 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.2 f. ii) b) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling unit by reducing the minimum interior side yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.12 metres, and by reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.63 metres be tabled for a period of up to 60 days to allow for Staff consultation with the applicant and to ensure all variances are captured accurately. 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-2024-0057 on January 23, 2025. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 33 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.7 File: A-2024-0058 and A-2024-0059 Owner/Agent: Jasbeer Johal Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 119 Liberty Street South, Bowmanville Application: The purpose of the application is to reduce the minimum lot frontage from 15 metres to 12.34 metres on the severed and retained lots in the associated consent application (B- 2024-0041). 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments, and no comments were received from members of the public. Staff recommends that applications A2024-0058 and A2024-0059 for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2 b. i) of Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 34 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: Mrs. Hunter (IP): I would just like to reiterate that I’m against this application and I’m against the position to demolish the existing house at 119 Liberty Street South. The house is over 150 years old and doesn’t look like that request is going to be granted from my side of things. I do acknowledge that Jasbeer mentioned that the survey results did indicate that it was a registered surveyor, and I already assumed that. The surveyor came onto my property without permission, trespassed and there was no letter beforehand asking for permission to come onto my property. I went out in my backyard and found the surveyor out in the backyard near my shed. They ruined a few trees and took branches right off. I would like to make a request to the city that the survey results are true. None of our fence lines are true around 119 Liberty Street South. My fence jags, like it’s not even in a straight line, and it’s like the surveyor or whoever put the fence up couldn’t decide where the property lines are. I’m just clarifying that none of the fence lines are true and accurate in this area. I would like to ask the Committee and the city to keep in mind that this development is very close to Liberty Street South, which is a highly trafficked street and it would require the street being blocked off for trucks. Additionally, the sidewalk is very heavily travelled, a lot of seniors walk along this street. I’ve been living in this area for over 35 years, and I wish that Jasbeer spoke to me and at least explained a few things to me before he did this. I knew the people that rented out of 119 Liberty Street South, and this is why I’m semi-informed on this application. I’m aware that the applicant owns multiple homes in addition to this one, and I have only owned one little home for 35 years, that’s beside 119 Liberty Street South. Please keep my plea in mind and that I just don’t believe this development is a good idea as I do have issues with the landfill to level that house. It’s a very solid house, and it’s not falling down in any way, shape or form. The house can easily be renovated, you don’t need to go through this development proposal and put the surrounding neighborhood through this. I would like to ask one question regarding the proposed buildings on the property. Is this a two-story house, and also do the houses need to get setback further than where the existing house is now? Chair: Thank you for your comments. I’ll now turn it over to the Committee for any further questions? If there’s no further questions, I’ll now turn it over to the applicant. Jasbeer Johal (Applicant): My name is Jasbeer Johal, and I am the owner for 119 Liberty Street South. I just wanted to go over the neighbors’ concerns. She mentioned again about the sidewalk maybe being damaged during any part of the construction process or demolition process. When a building or demolition permit is taken or when the construction takes place, there is a road damage deposit that gets placed with the city and it’s part of the permit process where the owner must give a deposit. If there's any damage that occurred on the sidewalk due to heavy equipment or any cracks, then the funds are used to replace that and bring it up to the new condition or up to the standards. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 35 Committee of Adjustment Meeting She also mentioned that she wanted to clarify whether the new house would be further back or will stay where the existing bungalow was. Currently we don't have any proposed fixed house drawings of what we're intending to build there, but one thing that I can answer her is yes, the new proposed dwellings will have to be further back from the road because as mentioned in the consent, the municipal region I believe is looking for a 5 metre set back road widening, which is 15-18 feet from the property line. So, these older bungalows, they were set back a lot closer to the road. Now with that 5-metre road widening in place, we're already going to be 5 meters further back. Chair: Could the Planning Department please summarize what the applicant said? I was able to get most of it but please address so we can get that answer to the member of the public. Nicklaus Gibson: Through you, Mr. Chair. At the time when the applicant came in to apply for the consent and minor variances for this application, he indicated that he did not have any proposed plans of what he would like to build yet. That was before, but I’m not sure as of today if he clearly has plans of what he is intending to build on these lots. Chair: Thank you. Can we address the other question from the member of the public about whether it’s a two-storey dwelling or what the building is? Or we don’t know yet at this time. Nicklaus Gibson: That’s correct, we don’t know his plans yet. Chair: Is there anything further that you would like to add from an applicant’s standpoint? It will have to be brief and loud cause we can’t hear you. Jasbeer Johal: I would just like to sum up by saying I agree with the staff report and any conditions that are highlighted in there. I believe that the minor variance is minor in nature and agree with the staff report, and I agree with any conditions and thank you for your time. Thank you. Chair: Are there any further questions from the Committee? Dave Eastman: I have a comment for Staff. Given the issuance of the 5-metre road allowance, I’m wondering if we should just table this application until that could be taken into account for the variances. Nicklaus Gibson: May I please refer to Shrija Vora for this question. Is that okay? Chair: Yes. Shrija Vora: Through you, Mr. Chair. The variances that are requested are only for the lot frontage, which will not have a problem with the 5-metre road widening. I understand the concerns, but the Planning staff will ensure that when the applicant comes in with the revised draft R-Plan with the 5-metre road widening which will be sent to the Region. Once the Region has signed it off, then our legal team will give permission to the applicant. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 36 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Dave Eastman: How does the lot frontage work then? I thought it would be based on the road allowance and how it comes into the property line? Sarah Parish: Through you, Mr. Chair. That is correct, and I understand what you’re saying that if we do have to take the frontage from that 5-metre road widening, then the applicant would be deficient in the front yard setback as well. So, you could table this application, and we can further work with the applicant with that 5-metre road widening if that is what you would like to do. Dave Eastman: Okay thank you. Chair: If there’s no further questions, I’ll turn it over to the Committee to make a motion please. The agent, Jasbeer Johal, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendations. Motion to table Applications A-2024-0058 and A-2024-0059 for a period of up to 60 days as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Gord Wallace. Time: 9:19pm Full text of Decision: That applications A2024-0058 and A2024-0059 for a Minor Variance to section 12.2 b. i) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to reduce the minimum lot frontage from 15 metres to 12.34 metres on the severed and retained lot in the associated consent application (B-2024-0041) be tabled for a period up to 60 days. 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-2024-0058 and A-2024- 0059 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner ABSENT Dave Eastman Noel Gamble ABSENT Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 37 Committee of Adjustment Meeting “Carried” 7.8 File: A-2024-0060 Owner/Agent: Howard Li Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 40M-2759 Block 49 Units 2-5, Newcastle Application: The purpose of the application is to permit parking in the front yard for townhouse units by reducing the minimum soft landscaping within the front yard from 40% to 30% for Units 2- 5 within Block 49 of registered plan 40M-2759. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments, and no comments were received from members of the public. Staff recommends that application A2024-0060 for a Minor Variance to Section 5 of Zoning By-law 2024-032 be approved. Discussion: No members of the public spoke to this application. The agent, Howard Li, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to approve A-2024-0060 as recommended by Shelley Pohjola, seconded by Brad Whittle. Time approved: 9:25pm Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0060 for a Minor Variance to section 5 of Zoning By-law 2024-032 to permit parking in the front yard for townhouse units by reducing the minimum soft landscaping within the front yard from 40% to 30% for Units 2-5 within Block 49 of registered plan 40M-2759 be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. 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-2024-0060 on January 23, 2025. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 38 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.9 File: A-2024-0061 Owner/Agent: Howard Li Staff: Nick Gibson Address: 40M-2753: Block 58 Units 2-3, Block 59 Units 1-4, Block 60 Units 2-4, Block 61 Units 2-3, Block 62 Units 2-5, Block 63 Units 2-5, Block 64 Units 2-3, Bowmanville Application: The purpose of the application is to permit parking in the front yard for townhouse units by reducing the minimum soft landscaping within the front yard or exterior side yard from 40% to 30% for Units 2-3 within Block 58, Units 1 to 4 within Block 59, Units 2-4 within Block 60, Units 2-3 within Block 61, Units 2-5 within Block 62, Units 2-5 within Block 63, and Units 2-3 of Block 64 registered plan 40M-2753. 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. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments, and no comments were received from members of the public. Staff recommends that application A2024-0061 for a Minor Variance to Section 5 of Zoning By-law 2024-032 be approved. Discussion: No members of the public spoke to this application. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 39 Committee of Adjustment Meeting The agent, Howard Li, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Motion to approve A-2024-0061 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. Time approved: 9:29pm Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0061 for a minor variance to section 5 of Zoning By-law 2024-032 to permit parking in the front yard for townhouse units by reducing the minimum soft landscaping within the front yard or exterior side yard from 40% to 30% for Units 2-3 within Block 58, Units 1 to 4 within Block 59, Units 2-4 within Block 60, Units 2-3 within Block 61, Units 2-5 within Block 62, Units 2-5 within Block 63, and Units 2-3 within Block 64 of registered plan 40M-2753 be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Clarington Official Plan, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and is minor in nature. 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-2024-0061 on January 23, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 8.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, November 28, 2024 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from November 28, 2024, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. Minutes – January 23, 2025 Page 40 Committee of Adjustment Meeting “That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on November 28, 2024, be approved.” “Carried” 9.Other Business Sarah Parish: A quick update, as of January 1, 2025 the Region of Durham had their land use planning responsibilities/power removed as per the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This change will impact us and our circulations to the Region so please bear with us as we work through this change with the Region. Dave Eastman: We will need to fix our sound system. We will need to find a solution to fix this problem, or go back to in-person meetings. 10.Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s consent application: February 19, 2025 Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s minor variance applications: February 12, 2025 Next Meeting: February 27, 2025 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. “That the January 23, 2025, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. Time is 9:34pm “Carried”