[4:51] Great. Welcome everyone to the town of
[4:53] Greater Napanee Committee of Adjustment
[4:54] for the 25th day of August 2026. We'll
[4:57] call the meeting to order and look for a
[4:58] motion in the adoption of the agenda as
[5:00] presented. Moved by Councillor Martin,
[5:02] seconded by Deputy Mayor Calvert.
[5:04] There's no further comments, questions,
[5:05] or concerns. All in favor of that
[5:06] motion.
[5:07] Opposed. Motion carried. Are there any
[5:09] disclosure of pecuniary interest in the
[5:11] general nature thereof?
[5:13] Seeing none.
[5:15] We'll also look for a motion to adopt
[5:17] the minutes of the 23rd of June 2026.
[5:20] Moved by Councillor Martin, seconded by
[5:22] Councillor Nouri. If there's no further
[5:24] comments, questions, or concerns, all in
[5:26] favor of that motion.
[5:28] Opposed. Motion carried. First matter is
[5:29] land severance application, file number
[5:35] Address is Switzer Road.
[5:38] Roll number is 112110001009150.
[5:43] The applicant is Scott Gateley. And uh
[5:47] there anyone here, as always, to speak
[5:50] for or against this application? If so,
[5:52] if there is, we can uh give you an
[5:54] opportunity to come to front and and
[5:56] identify yourself and and we'll um hear
[5:58] what you have to say. But, if there
[5:59] isn't, I'll uh turn it over to Mr.
[6:02] Naden, who I see has come in uh
[6:05] remotely. So, Dave, whenever uh you're
[6:07] ready, the floor will be yours.
[6:09] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you,
[6:10] good evening, everybody.
[6:12] I'm just going to be sharing my screen
[6:14] remotely. So, um just bear with me.
[6:29] So, hopefully the slide deck is showing
[6:32] on the screen for everybody. So, um just
[6:36] to
[6:37] move into the application.
[6:43] So, the land severance application uh
[6:46] submitted is to create a new rural
[6:48] residential lot that is going to be
[6:50] situated on Switzer Road.
[6:52] Um just to provide some site context.
[6:55] So, the uh the land area itself is
[6:58] approximately 30 ha in area. It's
[7:00] outlined in red on the slide. So, it uh
[7:03] again, south side of Switzer Road. Um it
[7:06] is close to extending to County Road 2,
[7:08] but not quite having frontage on it. Uh
[7:11] the surrounding area is characterized by
[7:12] rural and open field agricultural uses
[7:15] as well as rural residential uh uses.
[7:17] The site is zoned rural and has some
[7:18] environmental protection which flows
[7:20] through the uh center of the area
[7:22] itself.
[7:23] Uh this slide just shows the intent of
[7:25] the application. So, the applicant seeks
[7:27] to create a 4 ha um
[7:30] rural residential parcel with the
[7:31] frontage along Switzer Road. Uh the
[7:33] retained parcel will also feature um
[7:36] appropriate frontage along Switzer Road.
[7:38] So, a fairly consistent
[7:40] um lot creation proposal with the
[7:42] surrounding area and the retained lands
[7:44] will be approximately 24 hectares in
[7:47] area.
[7:50] Uh, with respect to technical comments
[7:51] and conditions, no comments of concern
[7:54] were received from the public, uh,
[7:55] conservation authority in the county had
[7:57] no objection to the application. Um, the
[7:59] conservation authority did note that the
[8:01] EP in the watercourse on the lands, um,
[8:03] could present development concerns, but,
[8:05] uh, there's adequate area to accommodate
[8:07] 3 m setbacks for natural features. Uh,
[8:10] one of the conditions, uh, to flag is
[8:12] that, given the development density on
[8:14] private services in the area, a
[8:16] hydrogeologic assessment will be a
[8:17] requirement that we are suggesting, um,
[8:19] should the committee support the
[8:21] application.
[8:23] Uh, all in all, the application has
[8:25] proper regard for the planning act, is
[8:26] consistent with the PPS, and conforms
[8:28] with the county and town official plan.
[8:30] Uh, we recommend that the committee
[8:31] approve the application subject to
[8:33] conditions, and I'm available for
[8:34] questions. Thank you.
[8:36] >> Thank you, Mr. Nandan. Just, uh, hang
[8:37] tight. We'll see if there's any
[8:38] questions or comments for you.
[8:40] >> any questions for Dave? Uh, go ahead,
[8:41] Deputy Mayor Carver.
[8:43] >> Uh, thank you, Your Worship. Uh,
[8:45] Dave, my only concern is,
[8:47] um,
[8:48] with this with this severance,
[8:50] it's quite a chunk of land, like you
[8:51] say, it goes right from Switzer Road all
[8:53] the way to County Road 2. Um,
[8:56] is there going to be other severances
[8:57] coming off this property at a later
[8:59] date, or is this just a one-time, and
[9:01] that's it? I'm just trying to
[9:04] I I I'm just trying to
[9:06] prevent what's happened in other areas.
[9:08] We we poke more holes in the ground to
[9:10] take out groundwater, and the next thing
[9:11] you know, neighbors around are starting
[9:13] to lose their water. Um,
[9:16] I just just I know I don't know an
[9:17] hour's, you know, hydrogeographical
[9:19] study, but what does that do to the
[9:20] neighbors three or four lots up the
[9:22] road, um, that may be on the same vein.
[9:24] I'm just I'm just I just a little
[9:26] hesitant anymore. You're seeing more and
[9:28] more people running out of water, and,
[9:30] uh,
[9:31] I just want to make sure we're covering
[9:32] ourselves, and, you know, is this
[9:34] gentleman going to be able to sever more lots down the road off of this
[9:38] piece of property or is this it?
[9:40] Thank you.
[9:44] » Thank you for the question and through
[9:45] you, Mr. Mayor. The is great question.
[9:48] So, the hydrogeological assessment is is
[9:50] exactly intended to address that to make
[9:52] sure that the existing uses that are in
[9:54] the area aren't going to be negatively
[9:56] impacted. So, there'll be a thorough
[9:58] review of well records, tests, as well
[10:00] as pump testing of a well to be
[10:02] established on the lot. Um and that
[10:05] those are peer-reviewed as well to make
[10:06] sure that, you know, we're making sure
[10:08] that existing residents aren't being put
[10:11] in a bad situation by additional rural
[10:13] residential development.
[10:15] Uh with respect to additional
[10:17] um
[10:19] severances down the road, while he or
[10:21] the owner, I should just say, is uh left
[10:23] with 24 hectares of land.
[10:25] 80 plus meters of frontage is really
[10:27] what's going to be left with the
[10:28] retained and that's not enough frontage
[10:31] for us to consider further severances
[10:33] from the land. So, it's going to be a
[10:35] large land holding that's going to be
[10:36] retained and I don't foresee further
[10:38] severance allocation.
[10:43] » Excellent. Thank you very much.
[10:45] >> Thank you, uh Mr. Nance. Thank you,
[10:46] Deputy Mayor Calvert. Is there anything
[10:48] else? Does anyone have any questions
[10:49] about
[10:51] Seeing none, we do have a recommendation
[10:52] that uh the committee receive for
[10:54] information the staff report application
[10:55] PLCR 2026033.
[10:58] Further that the application to sever a
[11:00] 4-hectare lot from a 30-hectare parcel
[11:03] be granted subject to a number of
[11:04] conditions that are contained within
[11:05] this evening's agenda.
[11:08] Moved by Deputy Mayor Calvert, seconded
[11:10] by Councillor Martin. If there's no
[11:11] further comments, questions, or
[11:12] concerns, all in favor of that motion
[11:15] opposed, motion's carried. Uh next
[11:17] matter is file PLLA
[11:21] 2026034,
[11:23] 269 County Road 9. Uh
[11:26] the retained portion in 389 County Road
[11:28] 9 was the receiving property. Roll
[11:31] number is 1121-120-010-03100
[11:36] and 1121-120-010-03110
[11:41] and the owner is an Appin DeBraken Town
[11:43] Works Limited and the applicant is Sarah
[11:45] De Costa. And Sarah
[11:48] Yeah, nice to see you. We'll give you an
[11:50] opportunity if you want to speak for or
[11:52] against this.
[11:53] And
[11:54] we'll let Mr. Nanton do his presentation
[11:57] and if there's anything that comes out
[11:58] of that, we'll get you to come to the
[11:59] front and
[12:00] um
[12:01] give you an opportunity to have to say
[12:03] your piece there. So,
[12:05] having said that, Mr. Nanton, the floor
[12:07] is yours.
[12:10] » Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and
[12:11] through you. Um so, an application was
[12:13] submitted for a lot addition
[12:16] between two parcels on County Road 9.
[12:18] So, just to provide a little site
[12:20] context, um the subject lands include
[12:23] the property known as 389 County Road 9,
[12:26] which would be the benefiting lot, and
[12:28] the property with the roll number as
[12:30] shown on the screen,
[12:31] that is directly to the east abutting
[12:33] the the rural residential lot. Um the
[12:36] sites in question are located on the
[12:37] north side of County Road 9. The area is
[12:39] characterized by rural residential uses
[12:41] as well as open field agriculture. Um
[12:43] the lands in question are both zoned
[12:45] rural and have some environmental
[12:46] protection
[12:47] and are designated rural and
[12:48] environmental protection as well through
[12:50] the town official plan.
[12:52] Um this slide serves to show the intent
[12:53] of the application. So, the area
[12:55] outlined in pink represents the lands
[12:57] intended to be severed and added to the
[12:59] property 389 County Road 9.
[13:02] The hatched area in blue represents the
[13:05] existing barn on the property for
[13:06] reference.
[13:07] Um so, the application seeks to add
[13:10] approximately 0.5 acres to the rural
[13:12] residential property at 389 County Road
[13:14] 9. The retained lands
[13:16] um
[13:17] are quite large and will maintain
[13:19] appropriate frontage and the site
[13:20] functionality will remain unchanged. Um
[13:24] the existing barn on the retained lands
[13:25] is to be transferred to the benefiting
[13:27] lands and then be used for residential
[13:29] storage. Um overall this uh this
[13:32] proposal will just help make the rural
[13:34] residential lot slightly larger in size,
[13:36] which improves its long-term use and
[13:38] viability.
[13:40] With respect to technical comments, uh
[13:42] no comments of concern were received for
[13:44] the public at the time of preparing this
[13:45] presentation, and the county
[13:46] conservation authority had no objection
[13:48] to lot addition. Um since publishing the
[13:51] agenda as of yesterday uh late morning,
[13:54] we did receive comments from a resident
[13:56] neighbor who just mentioned some
[13:58] concerns that um accessory structures
[14:01] may not meet all of the side yard
[14:03] setbacks once the new lot lines are
[14:05] established. Um
[14:09] for
[14:11] the sake of just ensuring that no
[14:13] non-compliance results, what um
[14:16] staff are recommending this evening is
[14:17] adding an additional condition to the uh
[14:21] to the conditions just to verify that no new areas of non-compliance will
[14:25] result, and if they are found um they'll
[14:29] be resolved to the town's satisfaction
[14:31] or through a minor variance.
[14:33] >> [snorts]
[14:33] >> Um with that additional condition and
[14:36] you know, consideration for the
[14:37] application
[14:38] um to improve the uh rural residential
[14:40] lot area,
[14:42] we believe the application is consistent
[14:43] with the PPS, uh has appropriate regard
[14:46] for the planning act, and conforms with
[14:47] the county and town official plans, and
[14:49] we recommend approval of this
[14:51] application subject to conditions
[14:52] including the additional condition
[14:54] brought forward this evening. I'm
[14:55] available for questions or comments.
[14:57] Thank you.
[14:58] >> Thanks, Dave. Is there any questions or
[14:59] comments for uh Mr. Nance with respect
[15:01] to the presentation or the report that's
[15:03] in front of us this evening?
[15:06] Seeing none, um
[15:07] Mr. Costa, did you wish to to speak to
[15:09] anything uh this evening? You've had an
[15:11] opportunity to listen to Dave's
[15:13] presentation. Is there anything you
[15:14] would like to to bring in front of us,
[15:16] sir?
[15:18] Okay, we'll have to we'll have to get
[15:19] you to to to the front. Yeah, and then
[15:22] uh we'll get you the the the microphone
[15:23] will be there and you got to push the
[15:25] button. It should be a green or middle
[15:27] button and it'll turn green and that way
[15:28] Dave will be able to hear you. So
[15:30] >> Dave, just one question. Jean had sent
[15:32] an email to me this afternoon
[15:35] indicating that a concern had come
[15:36] forward regarding
[15:38] a shed. I just I don't know which shed
[15:42] they're referring to. The existing barn
[15:43] has been there for a long time, the one
[15:45] that would be part of the lot addition.
[15:47] I'm assuming they're referring to a shed
[15:49] that's on my existing lot.
[15:53] I'm just I'm I'm unclear what the
[15:55] concern is.
[15:57] The sheds that are there have been there
[15:59] for over 20 years as well.
[16:01] >> Yes, so yeah, I you know, I'll do my
[16:04] best to provide clarity. Sorry to speak
[16:05] over you, Mr. Mayor. Um
[16:08] I looked over the comments that were
[16:09] received. Um I've only been able to
[16:11] complete aerial imagery review of the
[16:14] property. I haven't identified areas of
[16:17] non-compliance that will result through
[16:18] the application. And what that means is
[16:20] when the lot addition happens, you're
[16:22] going to establish new lot boundaries.
[16:26] The only thing I've seen so far is that
[16:28] potentially when a surveyor goes to mark
[16:31] the property boundary, which is going to
[16:33] be at the northwest side of the lot,
[16:36] the barn may not be 5 m
[16:41] exactly. So that and I know the photos
[16:44] were about the shed, um
[16:46] but by
[16:47] kind of adding a condition just to say
[16:49] that we'll review to ensure no non new
[16:52] areas of non-compliance, basically
[16:55] the new lot lines won't create um
[16:57] a zoning deficient setback.
[16:59] And then we'll address that at that time
[17:01] through a condition. And we're we'll
[17:02] work with you through that process.
[17:04] >> Okay. That makes sense. I just didn't I
[17:06] couldn't understand or I didn't
[17:08] understand if it was
[17:09] >> I was I wasn't clear either. Not to
[17:11] speak over you. I I just think it's
[17:14] I think it's best just to have the
[17:15] safety net of of a condition put in and
[17:17] then we can just review it and then if
[17:20] there's something required we'll just
[17:21] work with you through that process.
[17:23] >> Okay, that sounds great. Thank you very
[17:24] much for clarification.
[17:27] >> Great, thanks Dave and and thank you
[17:29] ma'am for clearing that up. So, is there
[17:32] anything that came out of that
[17:33] conversation that you had any questions
[17:35] of?
[17:36] If not, we do have a recommendation that
[17:39] the committee receive for information
[17:40] the staff report for application PLOA
[17:43] 2026034 and that referred to that the
[17:45] application to permit a lot addition of
[17:48] 0.5 acres to an abutting 1 acre lot be
[17:50] approved to a number of conditions that
[17:52] are contained within this evening's
[17:54] report and agenda. So, moved by
[17:56] Councillor Shanks, seconded by
[17:57] Councillor Davey. If there's Oh, sorry
[17:59] Madam Clerk, go ahead.
[18:03] » Sorry, through your worship just looking
[18:04] to confirm is the committee looking to
[18:06] add in that additional condition that
[18:08] Mr. Nanton recommended?
[18:10] >> Yeah, and that's what happens when you
[18:12] assume. I assume that you may have had
[18:13] it, Madam Clerk, but if you don't we can
[18:16] get Mr. Nanton to clarify exactly what
[18:18] that condition is.
[18:23] » Through you, Mr. Mayor. The condition
[18:25] and I can send this to you, Madam Clerk,
[18:29] is that
[18:30] um
[18:32] any areas of non-compliance with the
[18:34] zoning bylaw be addressed to the
[18:36] satisfaction of the town.
[18:50] » Thank you.
[18:51] >> Great, thank you, Mr. Nanton and thank
[18:53] you, Madam Clerk. We do have a mover and
[18:54] a seconder. If there's nothing further,
[18:56] we'll call for the vote. All in favor of
[18:58] the motion that's on the floor.
[18:59] Opposed. Motion's carried. Next matter
[19:02] is a minor variance application PLVAR
[19:04] 41,
[19:08] roll number 112109007005900.
[19:12] The owner is Roblin
[19:14] Wesleyan Methodist Camp in trust and the
[19:17] applicant is Matthew Moray. And once
[19:20] again, just checking to see if there's
[19:22] anyone here to speak for or against this
[19:24] application.
[19:25] And it doesn't
[19:30] Okay. No, well,
[19:32] it'll be the same as the last matter,
[19:33] ma'am, is if there's something that
[19:34] comes up you need some clarification on
[19:36] by all means we'll get you to come to
[19:37] the front and turn the microphone on you can ask
[19:40] your question. So I I appreciate that.
[19:42] Thank you.
[19:43] Um if there's nothing further, Mr.
[19:44] Naden, I will turn the floor over to
[19:47] you.
[19:49] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you.
[19:51] We received a minor variance application
[19:52] for 3418 County Road 18.
[19:56] Um
[19:57] just to provide the site context. So the
[20:00] area outlined in red is approximately
[20:02] the property boundaries, which is
[20:03] located on the west side of County Road
[20:06] 41.
[20:08] Areas generally developed with lower
[20:09] density residential uses and some
[20:11] agricultural uses in the area. The
[20:13] property is zoned open space and is
[20:15] designated rural through the town
[20:17] official plan.
[20:19] So the intent of the application, um
[20:21] effectively the uh
[20:23] the white building in the middle of the
[20:25] uh the site itself uh is the existing
[20:28] dining hall, which is in need of some
[20:29] rehabilitation and um
[20:31] you know, just repair and replacement.
[20:34] Um so the application is seeking to
[20:35] increase the dining hall from 1,700 sq
[20:38] ft to 2,900 sq ft. Um that is the extent
[20:41] of the additional development proposed
[20:42] to the application.
[20:44] Um
[20:45] unfortunately, the site being zoned um
[20:48] open space,
[20:49] all of the structures are deemed legal
[20:51] non-conforming. So our zoning bylaw
[20:53] doesn't consider permitting expansions
[20:56] to legal non-conforming uses.
[20:58] Um so they have to request uh relief
[21:00] through this minor variance application
[21:02] to permit the increase.
[21:04] Um
[21:06] This is just the uh the slide showing a
[21:08] little more of the site context. So, you
[21:10] know, none of the side yard setbacks are
[21:11] going to be um further reduced. The
[21:13] application is really just specific to
[21:15] the increase of the dining hall itself.
[21:18] No comments of concern were received
[21:19] from the public for the application, and
[21:20] the county and the conservation
[21:21] authority both had no objection.
[21:24] Uh staff found that the application um
[21:27] meets the general intent of the official
[21:29] plan and zoning bylaw, is is deemed
[21:31] desirable and appropriate for the lands
[21:33] in question, and is minor in nature, and
[21:36] we recommend the application be approved
[21:37] as submitted. I'm available for
[21:39] questions or comments. Thank you.
[21:41] >> Great, thanks, Dave. Is there any
[21:42] questions or comments with respect to
[21:43] this application?
[21:45] >> [clears throat]
[21:45] >> Seeing none, ma'am. Are uh Do Do you
[21:48] understand and Is there anything that
[21:49] you would like to add or
[21:51] ask or anything?
[21:54] Absolutely marvelous. Thank you. Uh we
[21:56] do have a recommendation the committee
[21:57] received for information the staff
[21:58] report for application PLVAR 2026030,
[22:02] and further that the application for
[22:03] 3418 County Road 41 requesting the
[22:06] following variance be approved. Variance
[22:08] number one, requirement section 4.8.d
[22:11] permits the replacement of a
[22:13] non-conforming use provided it is not
[22:15] increased in height, size, or volume.
[22:17] Proposed replacement of non-conforming
[22:19] 17,000 square foot dining hall with a
[22:21] 2,900 square foot building.
[22:27] And the relief requested is permission
[22:29] to replace the 1,700 square foot
[22:31] building, which is non-conforming in the
[22:34] open space zone with a 2,900 square foot
[22:37] building.
[22:39] Moved by Deputy Mayor Carver, seconded
[22:40] by Councillor Nora. If there's no
[22:41] further comments, questions, or
[22:42] concerns, all in favor of that motion,
[22:44] opposed, motion's carried. Next matter,
[22:46] file number PLVAR 2026035,
[22:49] 320 Bridge Street West. The roll number
[22:51] is 112106001020604.
[22:56] The owner is the Evangel Temple of
[22:57] Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. The
[23:00] applicant is the Board of the Evangel
[23:02] temple M. McPherson. And once again, if
[23:04] there's anyone here to speak for or
[23:06] against this application, we will give
[23:07] you an opportunity to do that after we
[23:11] hear from Mr. Naton. And Mr. Naton,
[23:14] the floor is yours.
[23:17] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you.
[23:18] Um so, I've provided a presentation here
[23:20] for the minor variance application
[23:22] submitted for 320 Bridge Street West. Um
[23:25] the site itself is outlined in red on
[23:27] the slide just on the south side of
[23:29] Bridge Street West. Um the lands are
[23:31] approximately 4 hectares in area.
[23:36] Um there's a few different uses in the
[23:37] area, specifically institutional running
[23:39] along Bridge Street and residential uses
[23:42] that spread out further in the
[23:43] surrounding area. The site itself is
[23:45] zoned community facility and is
[23:46] designated medium-density residential
[23:48] through the town official plan.
[23:50] Uh this slide serves to show the intent
[23:52] of the application. Um so, in the center
[23:55] of the slide itself, you'll see the
[23:56] outline block um rectangle. It's
[23:59] effectively uh to represent the shed
[24:01] relocation, which is to be 15 m from the watercourse, which is just located
[24:06] to the east. Um the minimum setback is
[24:09] 30 m of a structure to the high water
[24:11] mark, so they're requesting that relief
[24:13] to 15 m, which keeps the structure out
[24:15] of the flood plain, uh doesn't present
[24:17] any new concerns, and also provides um
[24:21] enough of a separation from the existing
[24:23] playground and the uses on the field to
[24:24] not create a compatibility concern over
[24:27] time.
[24:28] Um so, the nature of the application is
[24:30] really just to move the existing shed
[24:33] from the east side of the watercourse
[24:35] over to the west, but providing enough
[24:37] room from the existing playground to
[24:39] continue those uses. Uh this slide just
[24:41] serves to show where the existing shed
[24:43] is now and then effectively where it's
[24:44] going to be relocated to. And you can
[24:47] see it'll just be at the uh
[24:50] the extent there of the playground area
[24:51] for the uh
[24:53] for the church.
[24:55] Um with respect to technical comments,
[24:56] there's no comments of concern received
[24:58] from the public. The County Conservation
[24:59] Authority both had no objection to the
[25:01] application. Staff found the uh the
[25:04] application to be minor in nature and
[25:05] represent desirable development for the
[25:07] site. We recommend approval um
[25:10] of the application as presented. I'm
[25:11] available for questions or comments.
[25:12] Thank you.
[25:13] >> Thank you, Mr. Naden. Is there any
[25:14] questions or com- go ahead, Deputy Mayor
[25:16] Carver.
[25:17] >> Sorry about that. Thank you, through
[25:18] your worship. Uh David,
[25:21] I have no concern with this cutting the
[25:23] uh high water mark from 30 m back to 15
[25:26] on this uh application, but
[25:28] by doing so, are we setting us ourselves
[25:31] up for a um
[25:33] any kind of a precedence down the road
[25:34] for people that live closer to major
[25:37] waterways? Like I'm I'm not concerned
[25:38] with this little natural waterway rising
[25:41] up enough to cause an issue, so it means
[25:44] nothing to go from 30 m to 15 m.
[25:48] However, are we going to down the road
[25:50] create an issue when somebody wants to
[25:51] build something closer, say on the river
[25:53] or the bay, or Lake Ontario?
[25:57] Or do we do this every time one off and
[25:59] it doesn't set a precedence? That's all
[26:01] I want to be careful of. Thank you.
[26:04] » No, thank you for the question, through
[26:06] you, Mr. Mayor. No, and I I agree with
[26:08] the uh the sentiment and the concern.
[26:10] It's really important to make sure that
[26:11] we're reviewing each application and
[26:13] proposal on its merits and on the site
[26:15] conditions. This particular site doesn't
[26:18] have a concern when we look at the
[26:19] geodetic elevations that were provided
[26:21] from the Conservation Authority in their
[26:22] review, so we know it's outside of the
[26:24] floodplain. And it's staff's job to make
[26:26] sure that each time a variance is
[26:28] requested, when we're talking about any
[26:30] type of hazard, that we have to look at
[26:31] it based on that site and those
[26:33] conditions specifically.
[26:35] >> Thank you very much.
[26:37] >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Carver. Thank
[26:38] you, Mr. Naden. Is there anything else?
[26:41] Seeing none, we do have a recommendation
[26:43] the committee receive for information
[26:44] the staff report for application PLVAR
[26:46] 2025-035, and further that the
[26:48] application for 320 Bridge Street West
[26:50] requesting the following variance be
[26:52] approved and that variance uh
[26:54] requirement is 30 m 30 m minimum setback
[26:57] from the high water mark. The proposal
[26:59] is a 15 m setback from the high water
[27:01] mark and the relief requested is a
[27:03] reduction of 15 m in the high in setback
[27:06] from the high water mark. Having said
[27:08] all that, moved by Deputy Mayor Calvert,
[27:09] seconded by Counselor Shank. If there's
[27:12] no further comments, questions or
[27:13] concerns, all in favor of that motion.
[27:15] Opposed, motions carried and we'll look
[27:17] for a motion to adjourn the Committee of
[27:19] Adjustment. By Councillor Martin,
[27:20] seconded by Deputy Mayor Calvert. If
[27:22] there's no further comments, questions
[27:23] or concerns, all in favor of that
[27:24] motion.
[27:25] Opposed, motions carried. Thanks, folks.
[27:27] We'll see you at 7:00 for a regular
[27:29] session of council.