[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.

Committee of Adjustment - 25 Aug 2026

Transcript