Great. Welcome everyone to the town of
Greater Napanee Committee of Adjustment
for the 25th day of August 2026. We'll
call the meeting to order and look for a
motion in the adoption of the agenda as
presented. Moved by Councillor Martin,
seconded by Deputy Mayor Calvert.
There's no further comments, questions,
or concerns. All in favor of that
motion.
Opposed. Motion carried. Are there any
disclosure of pecuniary interest in the
general nature thereof?
Seeing none.
We'll also look for a motion to adopt
the minutes of the 23rd of June 2026.
Moved by Councillor Martin, seconded by
Councillor Nouri. If there's no further
comments, questions, or concerns, all in
favor of that motion.
Opposed. Motion carried. First matter is
land severance application, file number
Address is Switzer Road.
Roll number is 112110001009150.
The applicant is Scott Gateley. And uh
there anyone here, as always, to speak
for or against this application? If so,
if there is, we can uh give you an
opportunity to come to front and and
identify yourself and and we'll um hear
what you have to say. But, if there
isn't, I'll uh turn it over to Mr.
Naden, who I see has come in uh
remotely. So, Dave, whenever uh you're
ready, the floor will be yours.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you,
good evening, everybody.
I'm just going to be sharing my screen
remotely. So, um just bear with me.
So, hopefully the slide deck is showing
on the screen for everybody. So, um just
to
move into the application.
So, the land severance application uh
submitted is to create a new rural
residential lot that is going to be
situated on Switzer Road.
Um just to provide some site context.
So, the uh the land area itself is
approximately 30 ha in area. It's
outlined in red on the slide. So, it uh
again, south side of Switzer Road. Um it
is close to extending to County Road 2,
but not quite having frontage on it. Uh
the surrounding area is characterized by
rural and open field agricultural uses
as well as rural residential uh uses.
The site is zoned rural and has some
environmental protection which flows
through the uh center of the area
itself.
Uh this slide just shows the intent of
the application. So, the applicant seeks
to create a 4 ha um
rural residential parcel with the
frontage along Switzer Road. Uh the
retained parcel will also feature um
appropriate frontage along Switzer Road.
So, a fairly consistent
um lot creation proposal with the
surrounding area and the retained lands
will be approximately 24 hectares in
area.
Uh, with respect to technical comments
and conditions, no comments of concern
were received from the public, uh,
conservation authority in the county had
no objection to the application. Um, the
conservation authority did note that the
EP in the watercourse on the lands, um,
could present development concerns, but,
uh, there's adequate area to accommodate
3 m setbacks for natural features. Uh,
one of the conditions, uh, to flag is
that, given the development density on
private services in the area, a
hydrogeologic assessment will be a
requirement that we are suggesting, um,
should the committee support the
application.
Uh, all in all, the application has
proper regard for the planning act, is
consistent with the PPS, and conforms
with the county and town official plan.
Uh, we recommend that the committee
approve the application subject to
conditions, and I'm available for
questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Nandan. Just, uh, hang
tight. We'll see if there's any
questions or comments for you.
>> any questions for Dave? Uh, go ahead,
Deputy Mayor Carver.
>> Uh, thank you, Your Worship. Uh,
Dave, my only concern is,
um,
with this with this severance,
it's quite a chunk of land, like you
say, it goes right from Switzer Road all
the way to County Road 2. Um,
is there going to be other severances
coming off this property at a later
date, or is this just a one-time, and
that's it? I'm just trying to
I I I'm just trying to
prevent what's happened in other areas.
We we poke more holes in the ground to
take out groundwater, and the next thing
you know, neighbors around are starting
to lose their water. Um,
I just just I know I don't know an
hour's, you know, hydrogeographical
study, but what does that do to the
neighbors three or four lots up the
road, um, that may be on the same vein.
I'm just I'm just I just a little
hesitant anymore. You're seeing more and
more people running out of water, and,
uh,
I just want to make sure we're covering
ourselves, and, you know, is this
gentleman going to be able to sever more lots down the road off of this
piece of property or is this it?
Thank you.
» Thank you for the question and through
you, Mr. Mayor. The is great question.
So, the hydrogeological assessment is is
exactly intended to address that to make
sure that the existing uses that are in
the area aren't going to be negatively
impacted. So, there'll be a thorough
review of well records, tests, as well
as pump testing of a well to be
established on the lot. Um and that
those are peer-reviewed as well to make
sure that, you know, we're making sure
that existing residents aren't being put
in a bad situation by additional rural
residential development.
Uh with respect to additional
um
severances down the road, while he or
the owner, I should just say, is uh left
with 24 hectares of land.
80 plus meters of frontage is really
what's going to be left with the
retained and that's not enough frontage
for us to consider further severances
from the land. So, it's going to be a
large land holding that's going to be
retained and I don't foresee further
severance allocation.
» Excellent. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, uh Mr. Nance. Thank you,
Deputy Mayor Calvert. Is there anything
else? Does anyone have any questions
about
Seeing none, we do have a recommendation
that uh the committee receive for
information the staff report application
PLCR 2026033.
Further that the application to sever a
4-hectare lot from a 30-hectare parcel
be granted subject to a number of
conditions that are contained within
this evening's agenda.
Moved by Deputy Mayor Calvert, seconded
by Councillor Martin. If there's no
further comments, questions, or
concerns, all in favor of that motion
opposed, motion's carried. Uh next
matter is file PLLA
2026034,
269 County Road 9. Uh
the retained portion in 389 County Road
9 was the receiving property. Roll
number is 1121-120-010-03100
and 1121-120-010-03110
and the owner is an Appin DeBraken Town
Works Limited and the applicant is Sarah
De Costa. And Sarah
Yeah, nice to see you. We'll give you an
opportunity if you want to speak for or
against this.
And
we'll let Mr. Nanton do his presentation
and if there's anything that comes out
of that, we'll get you to come to the
front and
um
give you an opportunity to have to say
your piece there. So,
having said that, Mr. Nanton, the floor
is yours.
» Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and
through you. Um so, an application was
submitted for a lot addition
between two parcels on County Road 9.
So, just to provide a little site
context, um the subject lands include
the property known as 389 County Road 9,
which would be the benefiting lot, and
the property with the roll number as
shown on the screen,
that is directly to the east abutting
the the rural residential lot. Um the
sites in question are located on the
north side of County Road 9. The area is
characterized by rural residential uses
as well as open field agriculture. Um
the lands in question are both zoned
rural and have some environmental
protection
and are designated rural and
environmental protection as well through
the town official plan.
Um this slide serves to show the intent
of the application. So, the area
outlined in pink represents the lands
intended to be severed and added to the
property 389 County Road 9.
The hatched area in blue represents the
existing barn on the property for
reference.
Um so, the application seeks to add
approximately 0.5 acres to the rural
residential property at 389 County Road
9. The retained lands
um
are quite large and will maintain
appropriate frontage and the site
functionality will remain unchanged. Um
the existing barn on the retained lands
is to be transferred to the benefiting
lands and then be used for residential
storage. Um overall this uh this
proposal will just help make the rural
residential lot slightly larger in size,
which improves its long-term use and
viability.
With respect to technical comments, uh
no comments of concern were received for
the public at the time of preparing this
presentation, and the county
conservation authority had no objection
to lot addition. Um since publishing the
agenda as of yesterday uh late morning,
we did receive comments from a resident
neighbor who just mentioned some
concerns that um accessory structures
may not meet all of the side yard
setbacks once the new lot lines are
established. Um
for
the sake of just ensuring that no
non-compliance results, what um
staff are recommending this evening is
adding an additional condition to the uh
to the conditions just to verify that no new areas of non-compliance will
result, and if they are found um they'll
be resolved to the town's satisfaction
or through a minor variance.
>> [snorts]
>> Um with that additional condition and
you know, consideration for the
application
um to improve the uh rural residential
lot area,
we believe the application is consistent
with the PPS, uh has appropriate regard
for the planning act, and conforms with
the county and town official plans, and
we recommend approval of this
application subject to conditions
including the additional condition
brought forward this evening. I'm
available for questions or comments.
Thank you.
>> Thanks, Dave. Is there any questions or
comments for uh Mr. Nance with respect
to the presentation or the report that's
in front of us this evening?
Seeing none, um
Mr. Costa, did you wish to to speak to
anything uh this evening? You've had an
opportunity to listen to Dave's
presentation. Is there anything you
would like to to bring in front of us,
sir?
Okay, we'll have to we'll have to get
you to to to the front. Yeah, and then
uh we'll get you the the the microphone
will be there and you got to push the
button. It should be a green or middle
button and it'll turn green and that way
Dave will be able to hear you. So
>> Dave, just one question. Jean had sent
an email to me this afternoon
indicating that a concern had come
forward regarding
a shed. I just I don't know which shed
they're referring to. The existing barn
has been there for a long time, the one
that would be part of the lot addition.
I'm assuming they're referring to a shed
that's on my existing lot.
I'm just I'm I'm unclear what the
concern is.
The sheds that are there have been there
for over 20 years as well.
>> Yes, so yeah, I you know, I'll do my
best to provide clarity. Sorry to speak
over you, Mr. Mayor. Um
I looked over the comments that were
received. Um I've only been able to
complete aerial imagery review of the
property. I haven't identified areas of
non-compliance that will result through
the application. And what that means is
when the lot addition happens, you're
going to establish new lot boundaries.
The only thing I've seen so far is that
potentially when a surveyor goes to mark
the property boundary, which is going to
be at the northwest side of the lot,
the barn may not be 5 m
exactly. So that and I know the photos
were about the shed, um
but by
kind of adding a condition just to say
that we'll review to ensure no non new
areas of non-compliance, basically
the new lot lines won't create um
a zoning deficient setback.
And then we'll address that at that time
through a condition. And we're we'll
work with you through that process.
>> Okay. That makes sense. I just didn't I
couldn't understand or I didn't
understand if it was
>> I was I wasn't clear either. Not to
speak over you. I I just think it's
I think it's best just to have the
safety net of of a condition put in and
then we can just review it and then if
there's something required we'll just
work with you through that process.
>> Okay, that sounds great. Thank you very
much for clarification.
>> Great, thanks Dave and and thank you
ma'am for clearing that up. So, is there
anything that came out of that
conversation that you had any questions
of?
If not, we do have a recommendation that
the committee receive for information
the staff report for application PLOA
2026034 and that referred to that the
application to permit a lot addition of
0.5 acres to an abutting 1 acre lot be
approved to a number of conditions that
are contained within this evening's
report and agenda. So, moved by
Councillor Shanks, seconded by
Councillor Davey. If there's Oh, sorry
Madam Clerk, go ahead.
» Sorry, through your worship just looking
to confirm is the committee looking to
add in that additional condition that
Mr. Nanton recommended?
>> Yeah, and that's what happens when you
assume. I assume that you may have had
it, Madam Clerk, but if you don't we can
get Mr. Nanton to clarify exactly what
that condition is.
» Through you, Mr. Mayor. The condition
and I can send this to you, Madam Clerk,
is that
um
any areas of non-compliance with the
zoning bylaw be addressed to the
satisfaction of the town.
» Thank you.
>> Great, thank you, Mr. Nanton and thank
you, Madam Clerk. We do have a mover and
a seconder. If there's nothing further,
we'll call for the vote. All in favor of
the motion that's on the floor.
Opposed. Motion's carried. Next matter
is a minor variance application PLVAR
41,
roll number 112109007005900.
The owner is Roblin
Wesleyan Methodist Camp in trust and the
applicant is Matthew Moray. And once
again, just checking to see if there's
anyone here to speak for or against this
application.
And it doesn't
Okay. No, well,
it'll be the same as the last matter,
ma'am, is if there's something that
comes up you need some clarification on
by all means we'll get you to come to
the front and turn the microphone on you can ask
your question. So I I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Um if there's nothing further, Mr.
Naden, I will turn the floor over to
you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you.
We received a minor variance application
for 3418 County Road 18.
Um
just to provide the site context. So the
area outlined in red is approximately
the property boundaries, which is
located on the west side of County Road
41.
Areas generally developed with lower
density residential uses and some
agricultural uses in the area. The
property is zoned open space and is
designated rural through the town
official plan.
So the intent of the application, um
effectively the uh
the white building in the middle of the
uh the site itself uh is the existing
dining hall, which is in need of some
rehabilitation and um
you know, just repair and replacement.
Um so the application is seeking to
increase the dining hall from 1,700 sq
ft to 2,900 sq ft. Um that is the extent
of the additional development proposed
to the application.
Um
unfortunately, the site being zoned um
open space,
all of the structures are deemed legal
non-conforming. So our zoning bylaw
doesn't consider permitting expansions
to legal non-conforming uses.
Um so they have to request uh relief
through this minor variance application
to permit the increase.
Um
This is just the uh the slide showing a
little more of the site context. So, you
know, none of the side yard setbacks are
going to be um further reduced. The
application is really just specific to
the increase of the dining hall itself.
No comments of concern were received
from the public for the application, and
the county and the conservation
authority both had no objection.
Uh staff found that the application um
meets the general intent of the official
plan and zoning bylaw, is is deemed
desirable and appropriate for the lands
in question, and is minor in nature, and
we recommend the application be approved
as submitted. I'm available for
questions or comments. Thank you.
>> Great, thanks, Dave. Is there any
questions or comments with respect to
this application?
>> [clears throat]
>> Seeing none, ma'am. Are uh Do Do you
understand and Is there anything that
you would like to add or
ask or anything?
Absolutely marvelous. Thank you. Uh we
do have a recommendation the committee
received for information the staff
report for application PLVAR 2026030,
and further that the application for
3418 County Road 41 requesting the
following variance be approved. Variance
number one, requirement section 4.8.d
permits the replacement of a
non-conforming use provided it is not
increased in height, size, or volume.
Proposed replacement of non-conforming
17,000 square foot dining hall with a
2,900 square foot building.
And the relief requested is permission
to replace the 1,700 square foot
building, which is non-conforming in the
open space zone with a 2,900 square foot
building.
Moved by Deputy Mayor Carver, seconded
by Councillor Nora. If there's no
further comments, questions, or
concerns, all in favor of that motion,
opposed, motion's carried. Next matter,
file number PLVAR 2026035,
320 Bridge Street West. The roll number
is 112106001020604.
The owner is the Evangel Temple of
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. The
applicant is the Board of the Evangel
temple M. McPherson. And once again, if
there's anyone here to speak for or
against this application, we will give
you an opportunity to do that after we
hear from Mr. Naton. And Mr. Naton,
the floor is yours.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you.
Um so, I've provided a presentation here
for the minor variance application
submitted for 320 Bridge Street West. Um
the site itself is outlined in red on
the slide just on the south side of
Bridge Street West. Um the lands are
approximately 4 hectares in area.
Um there's a few different uses in the
area, specifically institutional running
along Bridge Street and residential uses
that spread out further in the
surrounding area. The site itself is
zoned community facility and is
designated medium-density residential
through the town official plan.
Uh this slide serves to show the intent
of the application. Um so, in the center
of the slide itself, you'll see the
outline block um rectangle. It's
effectively uh to represent the shed
relocation, which is to be 15 m from the watercourse, which is just located
to the east. Um the minimum setback is
30 m of a structure to the high water
mark, so they're requesting that relief
to 15 m, which keeps the structure out
of the flood plain, uh doesn't present
any new concerns, and also provides um
enough of a separation from the existing
playground and the uses on the field to
not create a compatibility concern over
time.
Um so, the nature of the application is
really just to move the existing shed
from the east side of the watercourse
over to the west, but providing enough
room from the existing playground to
continue those uses. Uh this slide just
serves to show where the existing shed
is now and then effectively where it's
going to be relocated to. And you can
see it'll just be at the uh
the extent there of the playground area
for the uh
for the church.
Um with respect to technical comments,
there's no comments of concern received
from the public. The County Conservation
Authority both had no objection to the
application. Staff found the uh the
application to be minor in nature and
represent desirable development for the
site. We recommend approval um
of the application as presented. I'm
available for questions or comments.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Naden. Is there any
questions or com- go ahead, Deputy Mayor
Carver.
>> Sorry about that. Thank you, through
your worship. Uh David,
I have no concern with this cutting the
uh high water mark from 30 m back to 15
on this uh application, but
by doing so, are we setting us ourselves
up for a um
any kind of a precedence down the road
for people that live closer to major
waterways? Like I'm I'm not concerned
with this little natural waterway rising
up enough to cause an issue, so it means
nothing to go from 30 m to 15 m.
However, are we going to down the road
create an issue when somebody wants to
build something closer, say on the river
or the bay, or Lake Ontario?
Or do we do this every time one off and
it doesn't set a precedence? That's all
I want to be careful of. Thank you.
» No, thank you for the question, through
you, Mr. Mayor. No, and I I agree with
the uh the sentiment and the concern.
It's really important to make sure that
we're reviewing each application and
proposal on its merits and on the site
conditions. This particular site doesn't
have a concern when we look at the
geodetic elevations that were provided
from the Conservation Authority in their
review, so we know it's outside of the
floodplain. And it's staff's job to make
sure that each time a variance is
requested, when we're talking about any
type of hazard, that we have to look at
it based on that site and those
conditions specifically.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Carver. Thank
you, Mr. Naden. Is there anything else?
Seeing none, we do have a recommendation
the committee receive for information
the staff report for application PLVAR
2025-035, and further that the
application for 320 Bridge Street West
requesting the following variance be
approved and that variance uh
requirement is 30 m 30 m minimum setback
from the high water mark. The proposal
is a 15 m setback from the high water
mark and the relief requested is a
reduction of 15 m in the high in setback
from the high water mark. Having said
all that, moved by Deputy Mayor Calvert,
seconded by Counselor Shank. If there's
no further comments, questions or
concerns, all in favor of that motion.
Opposed, motions carried and we'll look
for a motion to adjourn the Committee of
Adjustment. By Councillor Martin,
seconded by Deputy Mayor Calvert. If
there's no further comments, questions
or concerns, all in favor of that
motion.
Opposed, motions carried. Thanks, folks.
We'll see you at 7:00 for a regular
session of council.