Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-29 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 29, 2026 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: Sarah Gattie Secretary-Treasurer Jacob Circo Acting Secretary-Treasurer Nicklaus Gibson Acting Secretary-Treasure Hebah Masood Acting Secretary-Treasurer Todd Taylor Chair Wendy Partner Member Dave Eastman Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member Shelley Pohjola Member Absent with Regrets: Brad Whittle 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 “None” Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. Consent Applications: 4.1 File Number: B-2025-0024 Owner/Agent: Giovanni Salvatore Dileva Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 2162 Regional Road 3, Enniskillen Application: 1. The purpose of this application is to facilitate a registered cross-access easement on Part 12 on 40R27729 in order to facilitate vehicular movement across the lands at 2160 Regional Road 3 and 2158 Regional Road 3. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from the public. 5. Staff recommend that the application be approved subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant/agent, Dan Strike, 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. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. No comments or questions from committee members or members of the public. Motion to approve B-2025-0024 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Time approved 6:40pm. Full text of Decision: That application B2025-0024 for consent be approved subject to the conditions herein. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 3 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. The Owner 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. That the Owner satisfies all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington’s Development Engineering Division, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Development Engineering letter January 14, 2026. 3. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 4. Once all other conditions have been satisfied, the Owner 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 5. That the Owner shall ensure that the proposed easement/right-of-way complies with all appliable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63 and Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings. Advisory Notes 1. It is the Owner’s responsibility to fulfill the conditions of consent approval within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act. We will issue no further notice or warning of the expiration of the two- year period. 2. If the conditions for consent approval are not fulfilled within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision and the Owner 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-2025-0024 on January 29, 2026. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 4.2 File Number: B-2025-0026 Owner/Agent: Mitch Morawetz Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 5800 Main Street, Orono Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the creation of a new lot as Part 1 (Retained Lot) and Part 2 (Severed Lot) on the draft reference plan. Part 1 will have approximately 145.13 metres of lot frontage, with a depth of approximately 154.82 metres, and a lot area of approximately 26,061 square metres. Part 2 will have 44.87 metres of lot frontage, with a depth of approximately 73 metres, and a lot area of approximately 3275 square metres. 2. 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. 3. Comments are outstanding from the Durham Region Health Department. The applicant was unable to confirm the location of the sanitary system components, and thus Durham Region Health was unable to recommend approval of this application as they are unable to confirm if there are Ontario Building Code compliance issues related to the proximity of the sanitary system to the property line. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 5 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from the public. 5. Staff recommend that application B-2025-0026 for consent be tabled to allow the applicant to provide the Durham Region Health Department with the appropriate information to satisfy any outstanding concerns. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant/agent, Mitch Morawetz, 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. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Motion to approve B-2025-0026 as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved 6:47pm. Full text of Decision: That application B-2025-0026 for consent be tabled to allow the applicant to provide the Durham Region Health Department with the appropriate information to satisfy any outstanding concerns. Discussion: D. Eastman: asked whether there should be a date for when the application is to return to the Committee in the motion. It was decided it should be kept open ended to allow the applicant to have enough time to get the required information to the Durham Region Health Department and for them to provide their comments. All Committee members and Staff are in agreement. Conclusion: 1. The recommendation from Planning Staff is that application for consent be tabled to allow the applicant to provide the Durham Region Health Department with the appropriate information to satisfy any outstanding concerns. 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-2025-0026 on January 29, 2026. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 6 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Conflict Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 4.2 File Number: B-2025-0030 Owner/Agent: Monica Hoy / Martindale Planning c/o., Bob Martindal Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 62 Concession Street W, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of this application is to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot with an existing coach house as proposed as Part 1 on the Draft Reference Plan in Bowmanville. 2. 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. 3. Comments were received from the Community Planning Division (Heritage) regarding the conditions to include a submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment prior to a recommendation being made. 4. Comments were received in opposition to the application from a neighbouring resident. The nature of the concerns were regarding the coach house being located on the property line for the proposed severed lot. • Comments received by the public will be considered when the application is lifted from the tabling and presented again to the Committee of Adjustment. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 7 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 5. Staff recommend that application B-2025-0030 be tabled to allow for further discussions with the applicant regarding proposed heritage-related conditions, the additional variances that were identified, and any neighbouring property line disputes. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant/agent, Bob Martindale, 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. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Applicant does not agree with Staff’s recommendation to table the application. The applicant provided some background information on previous pre-consultations that and required studies Wishes the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions Committee Members N. Gamble: Is the heritage committee involved? N. Gibson: provided overview of CP comments S. Gattie: The Heritage Committee will be involved for this application to include their review and to provide comments. D. Eastman: – The encroachment on the property line? Has this issue been resolved? N. Gibson: The survey plan that was submitted shows that the coach house is not on the property line, but it does not indicate that it’s 2 metres. I’ve asked the applicant to provide a revised survey plan that shows the 2 metre distance. S. Pohjola: Why was the Heritage Impact Assessment not submitted? Bob Martindale – It was an oversight. We thought that the Heritage Impact Assessment was submitted with the application, but it wasn’t. W. Partner: When will heritage committee review? Next meeting? S. Gattie: Staff will have to discuss with the Heritage Committee on when we can get on their agenda. We would like to speak with the applicant first to come up with a path forward for this application. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting S. Pohjola: Does Staff require an updated site plan to be added as a condition to the Staff Report? N. Gibson: Yes, a condition should be added to the Staff Report regarding the updated site plan. Bob Martindale – The site plan is premature because the house exists and there's no desire to tear it down and to build a new house at this point. The consent application is to just separate the main house from the coach house, and there’s no intent to tear the coach house down. S. Gattie: An updated concept plan is needed to show the setbacks from the existing buildings to the property line so that Staff can confirm all the required variances. Bob Martindale – That can be done, no problem. Motion to approve B-2025-0030 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved 7:02pm. Full text of Decision: That application B-2025-0030 for consent be tabled to allow for further discussions with the applicant regarding any proposed heritage-related conditions, the additional variances are identified, and any neighbouring property line disputes have been resolved. Conclusion: 1. Staff’s recommendation is to table this application, as comments regarding the heritage of the property have not yet been received. A Heritage Impact Assessment from the Community Planning Division is still pending. Furthermore, additional variances have been identified, and staff recommend tabling the application to allow for further discussions with the applicant to confirm these variances. 2. The recommendation from Planning Staff is that application for a consent be tabled to allow for further discussions with the applicant regarding any proposed heritage-related conditions, the additional variances are identified, and any neighbouring property line disputes have been resolved. 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-2025-0030 on January 29, 2026. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 9 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Conflict Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 4.2 File Number: B-2025-0033 Owner/Agent: Ray Davies Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 1 Holt Road South, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate an access easement in favour of DNNP LP to support the development of Small Modular Reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station. In the staff report, it mentioned that the access easement was in favour of Hydro One. This is a clerical error, and the access easement will be in favour of DNNP LP, and not Hydro One. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. 4. No adverse comments were received regarding this application from internal and external agencies. 5. Staff recommend that the subject application be approved subject to conditions in the Staff report. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 10 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant/owner, Ray Davies c/o. Ontario Power Generation, 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. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Motion to approve B-2025-0033 as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Wendey Partner. Time approved 7:07 P.M. Full text of Decision: That application B-2025-0033 for consent be approved subject to the conditions herein. Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. The owner must provide a copy of the Draft Reference Plan, with the application, identifying the area subject to the proposed access easement that is approved by the Municipality of Clarington’s Committee of Adjustment, to the Clarington Planning & Infrastructure Services Department. Registration of this Reference Plan is done by the owner’s surveyor at the expense of the owner, including all expenses. 2. That the owner satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Community Growth and Economic Development Department, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Community Growth and Economic Development Department letter dated January 23, 2026. This is to be confirmed by obtaining a clearance letter from the Region’s Community Growth and Economic Development Department and submitted to the Municipality. Advisory Notes 1. It is the owner’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-2025-0033 on January 29, 2026. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 11 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 5. Minute Recess – Committee voted to continue the meeting with no break 6. Declaration of Interest for Minor Variance Applications 7. Minor Variance Applications 7.1 File: A-2025-0047 Owner/Agent: Michael Fry, D.G. Biddle and Associates Limited; Raivo Uukkivi, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Staff: Hebah Masood Address: 125 Port Darlington Road, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the minor variance application is to expand the uses within the site specific General Industrial Exception (M2-2) Zone to include the following: a) Contractor's or tradesman's workshop and yard; b) Equipment sales and rental, light; Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 12 Committee of Adjustment Meeting c) Equipment sales and rental, heavy; d) Outside storage of goods and materials where such use is accessory and incidental to a permitted use e) A farm implement and equipment sales and service establishment; f) A dry light industry within a wholly enclosed building or structure; g) A work shop within a wholly enclosed building or structure; h) An assembly, manufacturing, fabricating or processing plant within a wholly enclosed building or structure; i) A motor vehicle repair garage within a wholly enclosed building or structure. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. 4. Staff have received one comment from the public in opposition to the minor variance application. The commenters main concerns are that the requested variances are not in alignment with the proposed waterfront strategy, would increase traffic of trucks and larger vehicles to the neighborhood and would negatively impact safety in the area. It was their opinion the permitted uses to general industrial uses would not be suitable for the area. 5. Staff recommends that application A2025-0047 for a Minor Variance to Section 24.4.2a of Zoning By-Law 84-63 be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, and the Zoning By-law 84-63, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is not minor in nature. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant’s council Raivo Uukkivi noted that the Planning Justification Report written by Michael Fry from D. G. Biddle was not circulated to committee members and therefore the applicant would like the Committee to table the application to allow the Committee to review the report. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting M. Fry: presented his interpretation of Planning Act Section 45 (2) regarding the Powers of the Committee of Adjustment. Hi discussed that the Committee has the power to approve new uses where they are similar or legal non-conforming to the existing permitted uses. His interpretation is that the requested additional uses are either similar or legal non-conforming uses to Zoning By-Law 84-63. His opinion is that the existing permitted uses in the M2-2 Zone are too restrictive and too prohibitive by only allowing for boat repair and boat storage. As such, he believes the use permissions should be applied more generally. M. Fry: further stated that the requested additional uses are considered “Class 1 Uses” because they are low impact, low traffic and daytime uses. For these uses a minimum separation of 20 metres is required. Michael Fry added that new uses on the property would have to go through the Site Plan Approval process and any noise, vibration and odor studies could be evaluated at that time. Michael Fry handed out a copy of the Planning Justification Report to staff and Committee members. The applicants also displayed a diagram with a 20-meter buffer surrounding the property to indicate the area of influence for requested “Class 1 uses.” However, the townhouses to the west of the property were disregarded in this 20-meter buffer. G. Wallace: asked staff why in some instances the committee can add uses and not in others? For example, we have done this before on Baseline Road. H. Masood and S. Gattie: clarified that under Planning Act Section 45(2)(a) that the committee has the power to approve uses that are similar or legal non-conforming status. However, what the applicant is requesting is neither similar nor proven to be legal non-conforming. The permitted uses in the M2-2 Zone are site-specific and the general uses under the M2 Zone are not similar in nature. S. Gattie: clarified that the example on Baseline Road was a like-for-like use because childcare was a permitted use and the requested use was a daycare. That was considered a similar use so it could be approved through the Committee. Staff do not feel that the requested uses for this property are similar and they have not been proven to be legal non-conforming. M. Fry: noted that the Planning Act Section 45(1) speaks to whether a proposal meets the four tests of minor variance. However, that needs to be set aside for this proposal, and the Committee needs to determine whether the requested uses are similar and/or legal non-conforming. It is his interpretation that because boat repairs, boat storage and boat manufacturing and sales are permitted on the property and that the Zoning By-Law is not allowed to be so restrictive that the requested general uses of storage, repairs, manufacturing and sales are similar in nature. Therefore, it is his interpretation that it is within the Committee’s power to approve these additional uses. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 14 Committee of Adjustment Meeting G. Wallace: noted that the three committee members online do not have copies of the Planning Justification Report. S. Gattie: clarified there was a clerical error and that the Planning Justification Report was not included in the circulation. N. Gamble: asked why this proposal is being done through Committee of Adjustment since staff had already advised the applicant of the appropriate applications such as a Zoning By-Law Application? R. Uukkivi: noted that they had previously applied for a minor variance, however staff had told them at the time that it was not the appropriate avenue and that they needed to apply for a Zoning By-law Amendment. However, the owner has now formally submitted a minor variance application and it is his lawyers legal opinion and the opinion of his planning consultant that permitted 9 new uses to the property can be done through Committee of Adjustment. It is up to the committee to decide if this is the appropriate avenue. M. Fry: reiterated his interpretation of Planning Act Section 45 that the existing uses are permitted to expand through the Committee of Adjustment that because the requested uses are, in his opinion, similar and/or legal non-conforming. S. Gattie: reiterated that there is no record that the property has legal non- conforming status and that it is the owner/applicant’s responsibility to prove legal non- conforming. Additionally staff do not interpret the nine new requested uses as similar to the existing permitted uses on the property. R. Uukkivi: our legal opinion is that the applicant does not have to prove legal non- conforming status, but rather the person challenging (i.e. staff) would need to prove the property is not considered legal non-conforming. S. Pohjola: noted it is unfair to put the Committee in a position where it is not informed to make a decision. She recommended the application be tabled for 30 or 60 day so the Committee can review the Planning Justification Report, legal comments from the applicant and so staff can also receive further legal advice on the matter. D. Eastman: asked the applicant how they feel the 9 new requested uses are similar to boat repair and storage? W. Partner: agreed the uses are not similar. D. Eastman: continued that expanding to other uses and vehicles on the property does not seem similar. Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 15 Committee of Adjustment Meeting M. Fry: reiterated his opinion that the Zoning By-Law is too restrictive and prohibitive. He feels it should be assumed that what council approved is actually broader than what is stated. Therefore boat storage, for example, should permit storage in general. R. Uukkivi: added the intensity of boat repair is similar, or even more, in intensity to repair of other vehicles. Often times it is even the same motor and the nature of the repair is identical. And so the technical use is similar. D. Eastman: noted that something like a farm implement is not similar at all to a boat. He continued to ask why the requested uses are being opened up so generally. And why has the applicant not chosen a specific use to expand to? He asked whether the owner plans to sell the property and if the requested uses are for the purpose of marketing the site? M. Fry: replied that he is not privy to the owners intentions after the application, but that the requested expansion of uses is to provide the owners greater opportunity. W. Partner: Can we ask Council what the intent was in approving the M2-2 Zone? S. Gattie: agreed if the application is tabled, they can ask what the intent was when the M2-2 Zone was approved. W. Partner: Is this property part of the Waterfront Strategy? S. Gattie: staff is not aware of any relation to the Waterfront Strategy. R. Uukkivi: answered that this is not part of the Waterfront Strategy aside from its proximity to the sewage plant. S. Gattie: noted that in the future could the applicants please send all documents to the Committee of Adjustment Email <cofa@clarington.net> to ensure it is included in the circulation. Motion to table A-2025-0047 for a period of up to 60 days to allow for legal counsel and to provide the Committee with an opportunity to read the planning justification report, as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved 7:49PM Full text of Decision: That application A-2025-0047, for a Minor Variance to Section 24.4.2a. to expand the uses within the site specific General Industrial Exception (M2-2) Zone to include the following: a) Contractor's or tradesman's workshop and yard; b) Equipment sales and rental, light; c) Equipment sales and rental, heavy; Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 16 Committee of Adjustment Meeting d) Outside storage of goods and materials where such use is accessory and incidental to a permitted use e) A farm implement and equipment sales and service establishment; f) A dry light industry within a wholly enclosed building or structure; g) A work shop within a wholly enclosed building or structure; h) An assembly, manufacturing, fabricating or processing plant within a wholly enclosed building or structure; i) A motor vehicle repair garage within a wholly enclosed building or structure. be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, and the Zoning By-law 84-63, it is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and it 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-2025-0047 on January 29, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7.2 File: A-2025-0049 Owner/Agent: Monica Hoy / Martindale Planning c/o., Bob Martindal Staff: Hebah Masood Address: 62 Concession Street W, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the minor variance application is to to facilitate severance application B-2025-0030. The application proposes to: a. Reduce the minimum lot frontage on Parts 3 and Part 4 from 16 metres to 15 metres and b. Reduce the minimum lot size for Part 1 from 460 square metres to 453 square metres. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. 4. Staff received two inquiries regarding this proposal. i. The first inquiry was asking for more information and to be added to the interested parties list. ii. The second inquiry was concerning the proximity of the coach house to the property line. The additional information requested by staff will help clarify this issue. 5. Staff recommends that application A2025-0049 for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2.1 e ii of Zoning By-Law 84-63 be tabled for a period of 60 days following the receipt of requested information to allow for further discussions between the applicant and staff. a) The requested information is as follows and outlined within Section 2.9 of the staff report: i. An updated site plan showing: the existing dwelling, coach house, setbacks, lot coverage and proposed property lines for the consent application be submitted. ii. Coach house information including height of the existing structure and whether the coach house currently has a kitchen and/or washroom Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant Bob Martindale, from Martindale Planning Services spoke and provided an overview of the application. The applicant stated he does not agree with staff’s recommendation to table, but he can provide the additional information to staff so the application can move forward. Unfortunately, due to a clerical error the applicant was not provided a copy of the staff report until earlier this week. Whereas he was expecting them on Friday, January 23, 2026. Staff was made aware of the error on January 27, 2026, and sent the staff report to the applicant. Motion to table A-2025-0049 for a period of 60 days to allow further discussions between the applicants and staff as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time approved 7:56PM. Full text of Decision: That application A-2025-0049, for a Minor Variance be tabled subject to conditions for a period of 60 days following the receipt of requested information to allow for further discussions between the applicant and staff. 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-2025-0049 on January 29, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” Minutes – January 29, 2026 Page 19 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 8. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, November 26, 2025 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from November 26, 2025, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. “That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on November 26, 2025, be approved.” “Carried” 9. Other Business “None” 10. Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s consent application: February 18, 2026 Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s minor variance applications: March 3, 2026 Next Meeting: Thursday, February 26, 2026 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Wendy Partner, seconded by Dave Eastman. “That the January 29, 2026, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. Time is 7:58PM” “Carried”