Order of the special council meeting of uh Monday, June 1st, 2026. Ginsby is situated on treaty land. This land is steeped in the rich history of the first nations such as the Hadawender, the Hodnosi, and the Inisha, including the Missosagas of the Credit First Nation. There are many First Nations, Matei, and Inuit people from across Turtle Island that live and work in Niagara today. The regional municipality of Niagara and the town of Grimsby stand with all indigenous people, past and present, in promoting the wise stewardship of the lands on which we live. Are there any disclosures of pecunary or non-punary interest? Seeing none, can I have a mover and second to approve the agenda? Moved by councelor Vardy, second by councelor Frank. Resolve that the agenda for the June 1st, 2026 special council meeting be approved. All in favor? That's carried. Our first delegation this evening is Mike Collins Williams. Mike, uh, please come to the podium. Thank you. That was quick. Mayor and members of council, thank you for the opportunity uh to speak this evening. My name is Mike Collins Williams, CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association, and I'm also a registered professional planner. WHP represents more than 300 companies involved in land development and residential construction across Hamilton, Burlington, and Grimby. our members of the people responsible for delivering housing this region urgently needs as well as being a major employers supporting well-paying jobs right here in this community. I first want to acknowledge the sign significant amount of work town staff have undertaken throughout this official plan review process. There have been extensive consultation and thoughtful effort put into the draft before council. WHBA appreciates being included in the engagements and we appreciated the detailed and technical conversations we've had over the last several months with the planning department. However, despite a number of improvements, WHBA remains concerned that the proposed official plan is still too rigid, too prescriptive, and in several key areas inconsistent with the province's clear direction to support increasing housing supply, supporting higher levels of intensification and streamlined planning approvals. If Grimsby wants to achieve its housing objectives, especially around the GO station and protected major transit station areas, the official plan must provide greater flexibility in built form opportunities, design, and development standards. Transit oriented communities only succeed when municipalities allow sufficient density to support them. The province is making a major investment with the GO station here in Grimby and it is the town's responsibility to enable transit oriented communities through public policy. Across Ontario, municipalities are increasingly recognizing this reality. The city of Missaga, for example, has embraced more flexible built form policies around its transit station areas to encourage higher density and mixeduse communities. Bon Metropolitan Center is another example where planning policy intentionally supports larger scale intensification around higher order transit through flexible urban design frameworks. Even closer to home, Hamilton continues to evolve its approach to intensification around transit corridors and major growth areas. Ginsby has a tremendous opportunity around the GO station area, but that opportunity can only be realized if the official plan enables economically viable development. As such, WHB remains concerned that the proposed four-story maximum in portions of the TOD village area south of the QEW is far too restrictive. We question why the town is proposing a reduction from the original allocation of six stories. Transit oriented development requires meaningful density. Limiting heights too aggressively undermines the very purpose of intensification around transit infrastructure. The province is investing in Grimby. It is important that Grimsby respond to that public investment by enabling private investment. A couple of comments on built form. WHBA strongly recommends increasing the maximum residential floor to 900 square meters from the proposed 800. Slightly larger floor plates enable more economically viable buildings that will encourage larger family-sized units. From a construction standpoint, smaller floor plates is much less efficient as a larger percentage of the floor plate is occupied by service corridors, staircases, and elevators. A slightly larger floor plate improves building efficiency and thus economic viability as well as livability by creating opportunities for those larger units. The proposed angular plane requirements will create significant barriers to to delivering affordable, sustainable, and economically viable developments. While intended to manage transition between buildings, angular planes are an overly rigid built form control that does not reflect the real realities of contemporary mid and high-rise design. These requirements can severely constrain building massing, reduce design flexibility, and limit achievable density, often resulting in inefficient floor plates, compromised unit layouts, and higher construction costs without a corresponding public benefit. WHB recommends replacing angular plane requirements with more flexible approaches such as podium design or setbacks above certain height which can achieve appropriate transition while supporting practical and viable development outcomes. As a professional planner, I will note that angular planes were sort of the flavor of the day in previous decades but have been falling out of favor in many cities and towns across North America. WHB is also concerned that the proposed parkland policies are overly restrictive and do not reflect the province's recent direction toward greater flexibility and practicality in parkland delivery. In particular, we question the requirement that parkets can only be accepted where they create connections rather than as smaller standalone [snorts] spaces. Small parkets can still serve as a valuable functional public open spaces, especially in compact urban environments such as around the future ghost station area where opportunities for larger parks may be limited. Additionally, the proposed increase in parkhead size requirements from 0.1 hectares in the previous draft to a target of 0.25 hectares and up to.5 hectares may unnecessarily limit practical parkland solutions within intensification areas. Through bill 28, sorry, bill 23 and bill 98, the province has clearly emphasized that parkland should be evaluated based on functionality, accessibility, and contribution to the public realm rather than rigid standards related to size, configuration, or network connections. Smaller peettes, urban plazas, and privately owned public spaces, otherwise known as POPS, can all play an important role in creating vibrant walkable communities in supporting intensification objectives around transit in growth areas. There are active Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Environmental Registry postings um active right now that are consulting on these very issues. I'm concerned that if the proposals in the Grimby official plan may conflict with provincial policy before the ink is even dry. Finally, I want to touch on climate resiliency and energy efficiency. WHPA certainly supports the objective of encouraging climate resilient and energy efficient buildings. We support policies that incentivize innovation and sustainability while still recognizing the province's direction on limiting mandatory municipal green development standards. There's an important balance to strike between environmental objectives and housing affordability. The industry is already innovating rapidly in such areas as building efficiency, sustainable materials, electric vehicle infrastructure, and climate adaptation. But flexibility must remain part of the conversation so the sustainability goals do not unintentionally create additional barriers to housing delivery. At the end of the day, all of these issues connect back to one central question, which is, will this official plan enable housing or make it harder to build? WHBA believes Grimby can achieve good planning, strong urban design, sustainable ability objectives, and intensification simultaneously, but only if the framework remains flexible, practical, and focused on outcomes. We respectfully urge council to continue refining this official plan to ensure it supports the housing supply, transit oriented growth and economic realities facing municipalities across Ontario today. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you for your presentation, Mike. Uh questions from councel uh councelor Shawa. >> Mayor Jan, thank you. Uh thank you for coming. Uh just clarity on your questions. Um now as you know there are three development areas. Now you discussed more more so um areas related to the GO. So is this more density at the GO or are you in agreement that we'd like to kind of leave our more established areas alone or is this a blanket statement through all of Grimby? >> The focus should be within the GO station areas and and downtown. That being said, we do think there are uh opportunities for gentle intensification um within some of the existing communities. And by that I mean, you know, not building towers, not building midrises, but having opportunities for uh forplexes, small town home developments, things that create a diversity of opportunities. Uh we all know that housing is getting more and more expensive in uh most communities in Ontario, including Grimby. So having a diversity of opportunities enables young people just starting out to sort of get their foot in the door and have that ground oriented housing uh with a patch of grass uh maybe space for a barbecue to raise a family uh in Grimby. Um one other area that we see an opportunity within existing communities is sort of that smallcale retail, a corner store, something like that. um you do have some aging 1970s plazas that are sort of bordering on or just in communities and there may be some opportunities for I'll call it smallcale intensification there that does still fit within the character of the neighborhood um but providing more opportunities than just single family homes. >> Thank you for for clarifying that. Um so to your one point I I just wanted to clarify because you had said that the province has invested greatly in GO Transit and I would say for a community of 30,000 people groomsby taxpayers have significantly um invested in the infrastructure for all of these developments that are are not here yet. So this is the organization you are representing. So we have financially invested an incredible amount for all of this. So we are very welcome welcoming to all of this. Um, I would say personally, and I I can't speak for all of council, but there seems to be more of an agreement as far as the um the the flexibility um towards the go train area. So, I think if you know, if you're bringing this back to to the people, you're going to find that the plans are a little more flexible there for a lot of the things that you've discussed. And I would agree that I think maybe a 900 foot plan is possibly more um desirable than 800 and I would probably support that. Um the problem is is when you start impeding on the established areas and and chipping away at the parkland. So, um, again, I'm just one one vote here, but I think if you want to make it an easier go, then then touch on the density in the GO train area. >> Yeah, as I said, that's the focus. we see some opportunities for um communities to evolve over time with some of that flexibility and um you know I empathize with everybody around the council table that um growth and planning really is about change management and a recognition that our communities are changing and evolving over time. Uh and it's how do you manage that change over time? Um recognizing that communities should not necessarily stay static and frozen in time. Sorry, just to to add, I don't think anybody here is expecting anything's going to be frozen in time. I I personally I've probably been the one to be the most as far as pushing back a little bit. It's cuz I love this town and I want to make sure that everything is done. Um, you know, in a way that suits everybody that's already here. Um, so it's just good planning. So that's again I think if if you're focusing on on really intensifying an area go train would probably be your easiest bet. So thank you for coming. >> Any other questions from council? >> Seeing none. Thank you very much for your presentation. Mike up next we have uh Michelle Seaburn. >> Good evening counselor. you. Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity. This isn't turned on yet, is it? >> Yes, >> it is. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you for the opportunity to speak to our new recommended official plan. As a longtime resident of Grimby, I understand the importance of official plans in guiding change within our community. They are among the most important documents a municipality creates because they shape how our town will grow, develop, and evolve for decades to come. Prior to 2012 when the current official plan was being drafted, I was fortunate to serve on a community as a community member on GDAC which [clears throat] which at the time operated under the planning and development umbrella. We had a small role to play in the creation of the official plan particularly regarding employment opportunities, economic development and the pressures associated with growth. One of the key principles that emerged from that work was that growth should occur where it makes more sense. The west end of Grimby was identified as our primary area for intensification. The former place site, the former fifth wheel, the future go station were the logical choices for the higher density development. employment opportunities and the more walkable community. Access to the QEW made the area particularly well suited to accommodate growth. The Winston Road secondary plan and subsequent planning around the GO station reflected that vision. We've already seen some of the vision take place through the Grimsby on the lake area. While other significant projects including the GO station area and surrounding development remain unfinished, the West End still represents the best long-term strategy for directing higher density growth in the area. I mention this because it highlights an important principle. Growth itself is not the issue. Poorly managed growth is the issue. The purpose of an official plan is not to stop change. It's to shape change in a way that reflects the community's values. Most residents understand that Grimby will continue to grow. The question is whether the group the growth is planned carefully, supported by infrastructure, respectful of the existing neighborhoods, and reflective of the communities the way we want them to become. I was pleased to participate in several consultation sessions during the development of the new official plan. Having re reviewed the plan, I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that's gone into it. Planning policy continues to evolve at the province and adapting to those changes is no easy task. There are three areas, however, that I'd like to comment on today. The first is Grimby Beach. >> This neighborhood contains heritage. >> Michelle, I just want to clarify because the actual the last official plan was actually adopted in 2009. in 200 >> 2009, not 2012. >> Thank you for the clarification. I was still part of that one. [clears throat] >> Uh I was uh okay, three areas I would like to comment on today. The first is Grimby Beach. This neighborhood contains a heritage that is truly unique, not just within Grimby, but across Canada. Its character, history, and development pattern help define who we are in a community. I trust that staff is doing everything they can to protect that heritage and I commend them for the work they've already done. However, updating and consolidating planning documents must be done in a way that remains clear, enforcable, and visible to the residents. However, saying there's no change to the intent of the policy is not necessarily the same as demonstrating that those protections themselves remain equally clear and enforcable as they were when they were first adopted. Residents deserve a clear understanding of exactly what is going to change in this area now that the new official plan has been um proposed and envisioned as a secondary plan. Excuse me. The second area I would like to comment on is population growth and intensity. Most residents understand that Grimsby is going to continue to grow. However, I do not support a population forecast of 51,000 residents contained within the recommended official plan and what it means for how we grow. In my view, a forecast that forecast reflects a vision of growth that is inconsistent with both Grimby's physical restraints and the town's planned work. The intensification strategy completed by the town last year exam examined multiple growth scenarios and identified a s a sustained growth scenario of 13,900 new residents. This is less than the more aggressive target of 51,000. That aggressive forecast is based upon a Markham style growth of uh for Grimby where we grow grow from the center out which means intensification in the downtown which is inconsistent with what most of the community wants. I believe a sustained growth scenario of the study better reflects how residents want Grimby to evolve. This brings me to my final concern and that's building heights in the downtown. [clears throat] Excuse me. The population forecast matters because it directly influences the scale of development contemplated by the official plan. The recommended official plan permits building heights of up to 12 stories in the downtown subject to conditions such as visual impact assessments. I don't support that approach. I understand that councilors have become frustrated with the decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal. However, I'm concerned that with the combination of aggressive population forecasts and broadly worded height policies that uh they may unintentionally strengthen the position of developers seeking approvals that many residents would consider inappropriate. This is not the setting or this is not in setting the town up for successful OOLT. The problem is not simply height itself. The problem is the language intended to protect the community character and is not always specific enough for what must be preserved. What views are we preserving? What streetscapes are we preserving? What character characteristics define success? Without being specific, developers can argue that their proposals satisfy the intent of the official plan even when residents believe fundamentally that changes the character of the area. If council intends to permit these heights, the policy should be far more specific about what must be achieved and protected. My preference, however, would be simpler. just limit the building heights south of Main Street to six stories. I recognize that intensification has always been anticipated in the downtown, but when the current official plan was adopted, few people could have predicted the level of growth pressure Grimby would receive. The level of intensification contemplated in the recommended plan is too aggressive for the downtown area. Some of that growth should be instead directed towards the GO station area and other locations that were identified as more appropriate places for intensification. Throughout the official plan, we are reminded that one of Grimsby's defining characteristics are unique location between Lake Ontario and the Niagara Escarment. One of the Oops, sorry. One of the most recognizable views in our community is the view of the escarment from Main Street looking up Mountain Street. Residents know that view. Visitors know that view. It appears in photographs, promotional materials, and countless images that help define Grimsbee's identity. Let's not hide behind 12story buildings. Good planning is ultimately about balance. Balancing growth with infrastructure. balancing development with heritage and balancing new opportunities with qualities that make people proud to call Grimby home. Most importantly, good planning requires listening to residents and bringing people together around a shared vision for the future. I appreciate the tremendous effort that has gone into preparing the official plan. A document of more than 400 pages is no small undertaking, particularly in an environment where the provincial policy continues to evolve. The decisions made through the official plan will shape Grimby for long after we've left this room. We have the responsibility to accommodate growth, but we also have the rep responsibility to preserve the qualities that make Groomsby worth living. Thank you for your time and thank you for my the opportunity to share your share with you my visions. >> Thank you for your presentation. Questions from council? >> Seeing none. Um >> thank you. >> Up next we have um Bridget Malloy. Bridget, please come to the podium. >> Um, good evening, mayor, u, members of council, and neighbors. Uh, my name is Bridget Malloy. I'm a ward 3 resident. I'm speaking tonight regarding the draft official plan and specifically the downtown district policies. Earlier in this process, I appeared before council to express concerns about the wording of the draft official plan. My concern was not about growth itself. My concern was whether the plan clearly and predictably communicates where intensification is intended to occur and on what level of certainty residents can rely on when reading it. At that time, I noted that many policies related to compatibility, transition, neighborhood character, and built form relied heavily on should rather than shall. My concern was simple. Residents need to know which policies are requirements and which are merely guidance. >> I'm just going to raise so that one, you don't just drain your eyesight and two, you're a little closer to the mic. >> Thank you. Um, I raised the issue again tonight because u recent discussions u regarding downtown building heights demonstrate exactly why policy wording matters. The draft official plan identifies downtown Grimby as an important cultural, civic, commercial, and heritage focal point. Yet residents have are facing a fact that um many members of council sought to reduce mid-rise per um permissions um from 12 stories to approximately 7 to eight stories. The wording unfortunately may still allow approvals up to 12 stories. If council's vision is truly a downtown built form of seven or eight stories, then the official plan should clearly reflect that vision. Planning decisions are not based on intentions. They are based on adopted policy language. Future developers, future councils, planning staff, and potentially tribunals will rely on the words contained in this document. If the official plan says council may approve 12 stories, then that possibly remains part of the planning framework regardless of the intentions expressed during the review process. This concern is particularly important given the um recent sale of lands on John Street. Residents are understandably paying very close attention to how the official plan addresses height, density, transition, and compatibility in the downtown area. Public confidence depends on transparency, consistency, and clear policy direction. I'm also concerned about the broader planning environment currently in Ontario. Recent provincial initiatives have increasingly centralized planning authority and expanded the ability of provincial decision makers to accelerate development approvals. Whether one agrees with those changes or not, they create additional uncertainty regarding how local planning decisions may be made in the future. In that context, the official plan becomes even more important. If future councils, provincial authorities, or other decision makers are granted greater powers over development approvals, then the wording adopted in this official plan today becomes critically important. Residents may have fewer opportunities in the future to influence individual development proposals. As a result, that's okay. As a result, it is essential that the official plan contain clear enforcable direction regarding height, transition, compatibility, heritage conservation, and neighborhood character. That is why I continue to believe that discuss discretionary language such as should and may must be used carefully, particularly where council's intent is to establish meaningful limits or protections. I'm also concerned that discretionary language continues to appear in areas where residents expect certainty. Policies intended to protect protect neighborhood character, heritage context, and appropriate transition should be written as requirements wherever possible. Residents need to know what outcomes are expected, not simply what outcomes are encouraged. The decisions made through this official plan will guide Grimby's growth till 201. Once permissions are embedded in the official plan, they become difficult, if not impossible, to revisit. Once heritage character is gone, it cannot be restored. I support growth and intensification. However, growth should respect the heritage, pedestrian scale, and unique character character that make downtown Grimsby the heart of the community. If council's intent is a built is a downtown built form in the range of seven or eight stories, then I respectfully ask council to ensure that the draft that the official plan clearly reflects that intent rather than leaving open the possibility of 12story development through discretionary wording. Residents should not have to guess what the official plan means. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you for your presentation, Bridget. questions from council. Seeing none, uh up next we have uh Sarah Nixon. Sarah, please come to the podium. >> How' you do that thing to like to lower this? >> Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. So, just to start off, I did I want to just be transparent in saying that I am a museum professional and I do currently say serve as the chair of the Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee. But today, I am delegating as a resident and I'm here to speak on the official plan as it relates to the downtown district specifically. But first, I would like to thank town staff and members of council for the earnest work in developing envision Grimby 201 in dialogue with the Grimsby community. I understand that this is no easy task, especially amidst substantial changes to provincial planning regulation and how this greatly impacts how we guide our communities. I see the efforts to be transparent, provide public education, and invite community input in the process and having the opportunity to participate in many consultations. I do appreciate this. When it comes to the framework to guide change in Grimsby's downtown district, I'm urging council today to further strengthen our controls and language in the official plan to ensure that the character, identity, and feel of our downtown remains intact, prominent, and celebrated by 201. Taking a holistic approach to upholding the built, cultural, and natural heritage of downtown is paramount to ensuring our distinct identity and sense of place. Currently in the draft official plan, there is language about the importance of the relationship between the Niagara Escarment and Lake Ontario in guiding development. I'm referring specifically to section 5.3 on the built form framework. And I appreciate that draft three of the plan requires new mid and high-rise developments to be assessed in relation to the escarment in Lake Ontario, but I feel this language is not strong enough in assessing these developments against each other and within context of the whole skyline. Each new six and eight story development alters the townscape as a whole. Even there's even a clause permitting the possibility of developing a building that rises up to 12 stories. And I wonder if this wouldn't create precedent for another and how this would then stand up in an OOLT hearing. Draft 3 also has a has reduced building height maximums for the downtown neighborhood to a maximum of eight stories and strengthened the language for new developments in the downtown village. I'm urging for building heights and density to be reduced further, a maximum of four stories across the downtown district. Otherwise, we risk the very character of our historic town, which as is alluded in the plan, is intrinsically tied to the escarment lake and I would also argue 40 Mile Creek, which is the reason why people settled here in the first place. To be clear, I support the development. I support development in the downtown district. Development brings new people to support local businesses. It's an impetus to invest in and nurture creativity and enrichment. and downtown should be vibrant and lively and new development will enable this. Rather, I'm asking for a scaledback intensification that still speaks to the character and feel of the downtown district. The area around the future ghost station is already identified for sharply increased density and building heights. And we're already sacrificing the relationship the escarment and lake there. So why sacrifice the heart of the town where our oldest heritage homes, mostly intact historic main streets, landmark churches, train station, trails, park space, it's all here. And these are the landmarks and natural gateways of the town. And in fact, to me, the most quintessentially Grimby gateway is the view of the of the escarment overlooking the town when you look onto any of the streets heading south. Section 5.2 two on the general public realm frameworks refers to the importance of placemaking gateways and the addition of landmarks in the third draft. I'm very glad to see this as this is essential to preserving the town's character. Our landmarks, prominent views, and gateways already exist and should be enhanced. As chair of the heritage committee, I know that we're working very hard to designate the buildings of historic significance across Grimby for the very reason that they contribute to our place to our sense of place here. However, as it's worded now, section 5.3 on the general built form framework and more specifically section 5.2 5.4.2 too [laughter] [clears throat] uh on mixed use development in the downtown district does not seem to be in direct conversation with the concepts set out when discussing the the landmarks. I feel I fear that this opens for contradiction and should be addressed. Otherwise, new developments risk dwarfing the historic character of downtown that we've been working tirelessly to protect and celebrate through heritage designations. My request here is to more specifically identify the landmarks and gateways we are collectively wishing to preserve and to explicitly reference designated heritage buildings within this. There is mention through the plan on the importance of trails, walkab walkable mixed street, walkable mixeduse streets, ease of transportation, views of the escarment. But I don't see these actually talking to one another in direct and deliberate ways across the sections. In section seven on infrastructure and transportation does not sign sufficiently consider how increased density in the downtown district will impact how people will actually move through downtown whether on foot, bike, car, or bus. These guidances seemed isolated from one another. So to summarize, I've come here this evening to urge council to reduce the maximum building heights across the downtown district to four stories to preserve the natural, cultural, and built heritage essential to Grimby, and to ask town staff to implement stronger language to better connect the guidances in the official plan related to building height, density, streetscapes, and multimodal transportation more clearly in order to remove contradiction and close loopholes left open to interpretation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you once again for the efforts put into making this official plan. >> Thank you for your presentation, Sarah. Uh questions from council. Councelor How? >> Okay. And through you, chair. Sarah, they we talked about the the build and and you probably know better than I, but uh when it comes to construction and then we're talking about trying to uh complement what's already down there. And when I was going through some of that um plan, but I came across one page on appendix D where it talks about um the province. This is the province remove the ability for site plan to regulate colors, materials and finishes of proposals. In other words, you know, so they can be compatible and so maybe If we could tighten that up, we can. But the province, and you know better than I do, what the province has done to us. Uh the they took away um the preconult, you know, which the probably the the the most um easy way to start the ball rolling in in the right direction, get somebody's trained out. They take that away. So, let's not talk to them. and then they've taken it down to site plan to be one person. So they're making it very difficult to fight, you know, the other guy. But thank you for listening. >> Uh seeing no further questions from council, thank you very much for your presentation, Sarah. up are there also uh tonight written delegations from Adam Mod's heads Sharon Porter and Kevin Luchenheisen uh that are on the agenda and included in public record. Can I have a mover and seconder to receive the delegations? Moved by councelor DeFlavio, second by councelor Vardy resolve that all verbal and written delegations on the council agenda but the draft official plan be received. All in favor? That's carried. Up next, we move to presentations. Uh we have Alexis and UT from O2 Planning and Design to speak to the draft official plan. Please come to the podium. All right. Uh, good evening your worship and members of council. My name is Alexis Beiel and I'm here with UTE GM Batista on behalf of O2 Planning and Design. We're here this evening to provide an update on the draft official plan and the work that has been completed to date. The presentation will walk through the key milestones, the policy and legislative framework, the major items addressed in the draft official plan, the engagement completed through the process, and the key directions reflected in the plan. So, this presentation is organized around the main components of the official plan review. We will begin with the project milestones uh and where we are in the process followed by the policy in the plan review, including recent provincial changes and the work completed to align the draft official plan with the regional planning framework. We will then review the key draft official plan items, summarize public engage engagement, and walk through the plan's pillars, growth management approach, town structure, recommendations, and next steps. And you can stay on this slide for a second. Um, the official plan review has moved through several phases beginning with visioning followed by policy directions, preparation of the plan, and review of the draft official plan. Key milestones have included public engagement opportunities, preparation of the official plan, and then the releasing the three drafts to the official plan of the official plan to the public. Tonight's council meeting is an important point in the process as we are now moving from consultation and refinement towards finalizing the plan with the final version expected to come forward to council in July 2026. Go to the next slide. Uh the provincial planning framework has continued to evolve while we've been preparing the draft official plan. A number of recent provincial bills have changed the broader municipal planning environment, including bills 23, 97, 185, and more recently, Bill 98. These changes reflect the province's continued focus on increasing housing supply, streamlining planning approvals, updating appeal rights and municipal processes, supporting additional res residential units, and changing certain planning infra certain planning infrastructure and financial tools available to municipalities. for this draft official plan. That meant we needed to continue reviewing the document as the provincial framework changed, particularly in relation to growth management, housing intensification, implementation tools, and how municipalities are expected to plan for complete communities and infrastructure. Another key provincial change uh that was introduced under bill 98 is the province's direction to remove the standalone secondary plans and incorporate them into the official plan and then update those to reflect the the current provincial framework. Accordingly, several key areas including Kemp and Mountain Road, Winston Road neighborhood and the Grimby go transit station and Grimby Beach have been integrated directly into the plan. This approach establishes a single coordinating planning document for the municipality. From a regional standpoint, provincial changes have also affected how planning responsibilities are structured in Niagara. As of March 31st, 2025, the Niagara official plan is no longer a regional plan and is now considered Grimby's second official plan. As part of preparing the draft official plan, we have had to review the applicable regional policies and schedules and determine how they should be carried forward, integrated, refined, or implemented through Grimsey's new local official plan. This has included aligning with regional direction on growth management, settlement areas, employment lands, agricultural and rural areas, natural heritage, infrastructure, transportation intim intensification, and the go station area while also ensuring the local official plan provides clear and locally appropriate appropriate policy. We've also reviewed the plan, the draft plan against the applicable provincial and regional plans shown on this slide, including the green belt plan, the Niagara scarment plan, and as I already said, the Niagara official plan. >> I'm just start No problem. Uh you can go to the next slide. Uh a significant amount of feedback has been reviewed and incorporated through this process including comments rece received through all engagement phases and on both versions on all three versions of the draft official plan. We've also considered feedback from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Niagara Region, the province, town staff, council, members of the public, and other interested parties. And as I mentioned above, as per provincial direction, we have also integrated the existing secondary plans into the draft OP. A major part of the work has also been updating and streamlining the policies so the plan reflects current provincial and regional direction while also making the document clearer and more practical to use. Next slide. Um, public engagement has been a very significant part of the official plan process. The planning act sets out a minimum consultation requirement of two meetings for official plans. For this project, we've gone well beyond those minimum statutory requirements. To date, we have completed approximately 18 engagement opportunities. This includes various public information centers, the statutory public meeting, in-person events, town talk events, a downtown cheret, a downtown thinktake, walk-in talk tours, a housing and affordability, community conservation, let's talk grimby surveys and polls, and then meeting with interested parties. The purpose of the engagement was not only to meet the requirements of the planning act, but to provide a range of meaningful opportunities for residents, agencies, and interested parties, council, and staff to participate in the process. Feedback was received through each stage of the project from the early on visioning work to the policy directions phase and straight through to the review of the draft official plan. The feedback has informed the structure of the plan, the policy directions and the refinements now reflected in the draft official plan. Next slide. The official plan is organized around a set of pillars that describe the type of community Grimby is planning for. One important change is the addition of the fourth pillar, compatible and responsible growth. This was added to recognize that Grimby is expected to accommodate most future growth infill and intensification rather than through outward expansion. As a result, the plan needs to provide a clear direction on how growth should occur. Growth needs to respond to the surrounding community, be supported by infrastructure and services, and contribute positively to the town's overall structure. The purpose of this pillar is to recognize that growth is expected, but that it should occur in a way that is compatible, responsible, and appropriate for Grimby's local context. Next slide. The draft official plan plans for growth to 2015, including 51,100 residents, 9,500 additional housing units, and 17,400 jobs. A key direction in the plan is that a minimum of 98% of the annual residential unit growth is directed to the urban settlement boundary. This does not mean expanding the settlement area but rather growth is intended to accom to be accommodated through infill intensification and strategic concern centers. Uh this approach supports more efficient use of land and infrastructure and helps connect growth with public service facilities, transit, active transportation, parks and community design. The plan also recognizes that growth forecasts may need to be reviewed over time. Future updates will be considered against develop demand, land supply, servicing capacity, and provincial projections. Next slide. Uh this is the town structure of the plan. It identifies where different forms and scales of growth are intended to occur in the general neighborhood area. The plan allows for gentle intensification primarily through additional residential units. The employment area is maintained along the QEDW corridor to support long-term employment opportunities. In the agricultural area, minimal intensification is expected, but value added and diversified agricultural uses are permitted. Neighborhood nodes and corridors provide opportunities for gentle intensification and additional uses. The health center is identified as a secondary intensification area with focus on health related uses. The downtown district is also identified as a primary intensification area and is a planned for the second highest density. Uh the town nodes and corridors are moderate intensification areas and the protected major transit station area is the primary intensification area with the highest densities and tallest buildings. And I'm going to pass it off to UT to go through more specifics of the plan. You might need to move the table up. I think it's okay. Good evening in your honor and members of cons of council. I will walk you through some of the um salient revisions to the official plan as it stands in its current draft. So next slide please. So starting with the PMTSA area, it continues to be envisioned as the um an area that's defined by an 800 meter radius around the Grimcoy station. It's it's identified as the town's primary primary intensification area providing for a mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at higher densities than the reminder of Grimby. It's envisioned to deliver a 100 persons and jobs per hector and it's the the highest intensification envision for the for the town. In the following slide, you will see a series of um updates to to the the land use and bill form strategy. So we have the TOD innovation and incubation which are non-residential uses are the employment uses that frame the PMTSA area. They're envisioned to for to accommodate for employment uses and they arrange between four and six stories maximum just to uh to accommodate for a range of um any any employment uh uh um um um warehousing and any other forms of of of uh land uses that may choose to to to build in the area. the the surrounding next big change was uh uh along the to village area. The minimum height now the maximum height now now has been reduced from six to three stories and with a permission to go to four stories but limited on Livingston and Casablanca recognizing that um they are higher order uh streets and and they they they um they have a very different interface than local streets which remain will remain at three stories. Then we have the second ring which will be the DoD neighborhood. It's where the maximum height remains at 22 stories with a minimum height of four stories and it it it's intended to support the core area which is the T to center which is the the tallest and densest part of a a TOD development with a a minimum 60 stories and maximum 20 28 stories. So it effectively works in a concentric circle fashion to uh more or less a 100 meters from the the transit station. From the next slide from the [snorts] downtown area, the focus of the revisions to the to the plan and some of the elements that were already included in previous versions is that the downtown will continue to to operate as the central hub of the of the town. It's outside the in industrial areas is is contemplated as the highest intensity or concentration of jobs. It's planned to achieve a lesser intensification than the PTSM at 125 people jobs and and and people per hectare. Uh and it's further as previously presented divided into four areas. The main street will still allow for that intensification of a mix of uses and the the the language that encourages the adaptive reuse and preservation of the heritage building already [snorts] contain or existing within the the area it's it's strengthened. So in the next slide you will see that we we are revising the the the recommendations to allow a downtown main street that um allows for a maximum four stories is consistent with a typical uh southern Ontario main street form. It has a permission to go to six meters provided 60 stories provided that a step back from the face of the building of minimum 3 m it's introduced. So when you are actually walking and experiencing the main street, you don't you don't feel the presence of a sixstory building. Um the downtown village area has been uh uh uh revised to allow for a maximum height of three stories with flexibility for up to four stories subject to further site plan approval. The downtown neighborhood area has a maximum has the height reduced from a maximum of 12 stories to eight with size specific permissions to go up to 12 provide certain conditions that met and and we hear the the the the public's input on that today. Um there's also I I have to note in the OP that particular clause came under the the the subsection of downtown neighborhood area. So it has to go back otherwise it reads as is as if the 12 story applies for to everything. So it has to be moved back into into the order of the it's a formatting uh uh issue that we discovered today. uh we removed the downtown neighborhood area and in the center north side of uh Main Street and we still uh maintain that the previously identified downtown innovation incubition incubation area which is envisioned for a mix of non-residential uses to a maximum of 10 10 stories. Next slide. Um the health center area continued to be envisioned as a secondary intensification area supporting health health services that uh work from the synergies of the existing hospital. We remove the town houses uh north of the of the main uh street as they will remain as as they exist and no further uh changes or provisions are envisioned. However, the health center main street is uh a mission to allow for a maximum of six 60 stories and to continue to support a mix of uses that work uh uh and make the best of the synergies with the hospital. The the health center neighborhood which is located at the back of the hospital will allow for a maximum of forest stories and will continue to house uh the assistant living facilities that are in place. And obviously the hospital will continue to to function in its current capacity. Next, um, a big question that came up last time that we were presenting here and then we wanted to to be pointed in introducing our or highlighting it back to you is that at least on it's on the front of housing and affordability where at least 20% of new rental housing is to be affordable and at least 10% of uh, market ownership housing is to be affordable. Affordable housing is defined by both ownership and rental housing and it's defined by the province. Uh it will support a mix of bill forms, long-term rental units, additional residential units, inclusionary zoning tools, [snorts] infill and intensification. So the the the efforts to expand the housing affordability has many different tools that that are mentioned and and listed in the official plan. So the the town is well prepared to to um uh enact and and and and support the the creation of many housing opportunities for for a wide range of uh of incomes and and and and people in coming choosing rims. Um a future affordable and attainable housing strategy may uh be commissioned to to establish additional policies on on this front. So that's those two two the the percentages that you see uh are important additions into into how we are envisioning that component of the official plan. Next slide. from the environment and agriculture. There were several elements that um uh were updated. Uh primarily it really focus on on the encouraging the the value added agricultural uses and diversity of agricultural uses related uses that range from a tourism or uh onfarmm diversified uses. Uh we revised the canabis and hemp policies uh to ensure that development not does not create an a negative impact um offsite. uh moved the policy restricting one dwelling on a lot to the specialty crop area from the rural and agricultural section and added the additional residential unit policies which was a technical uh glitch that we had in in how we allow that um additional dwelling unit. added campground as a um permit into permitted use into the rural and agricultural section. Uh updated environmental areas and buffers and added wildland fire policies as a and mapping as requested by by the province. Next slide. Moving around, the the plan looks to align with the new transportation master plan. uh it supports the creation of transportation network for a v variety of travel modes which at the end of the day also encouraged the implementation of a transit service. Uh it supports the the the enhance local transcept transit as well as connection to the go station and go transit in the future. It protects the movement of goods and it it it plans the expansion of the pedestrian and and cycling infrastructure in town. Next slide. One [snorts] of the fine-tuned elements that we had is one on on the one of the uh town nodes that we have at the easter uh uh note where um additional policies that uh are meant to enhance uh employment uses were introduced rather than leaving a vague language as far as mixed use. We wanted to make sure that it it continued to uh encourage and support employment mixed uses in that area. So that's another change that we'll see. Next slide. other other um revisions and updates that have come through a series of conversations with different uh participants where for example the finetuning of the Grimby air park policy which were simplified to recognize the aerodrome and acknowledge federal permissions. So you will find them under section 8 of uh of the official plan. We adjusted policies for 141 149 Main Street based on the old most recent OOLT decision. Uh we amended the complete application requirement list based on what the province is asking municipalities to to list. Uh we added uh policies to the creation of uh the community planning permit system which is a new system and tool that uh the province uh put forward and municipalities can make use of in in the um you know planning of future future areas in the town. uh we we move the build form policies that were under their own heading into the land use so it's easier for the reader to understand what sort of building is expected and what are the parameters of that building when you're uh speaking of a particular area and we added uh rural urban interface viewshed land use compatibility and ra railway related policies which um pertain to any of the lands that are immediately adjacent to the railroad corridor. Uh, next slide. Greensby beach. The secondary plan was integrated into the official plan. As as previously mentioned, the province has mandated that uh secondary plans be integrated into into uh new moving forward official plans. So in the same vein, the Winston road and then uh the ghost station secondary plans were um integrated into the into into the document. Um in the case of Greensby Beach, uh the policies continue to recognize the unique heritage and and cultural landscapable form of place. Uh and the direction addresses managing change. um the the the core south and and uh north character areas, land use, transportation and the implementation of of of any future changes through in the area will occur through through zoning site plan control, heritage tools and public rail improvements. So it continues to have the full ex uh uh uh strength of the of the uh original secondary plan but now migrated under the the umbrella of the of the new official plan. Next slide. So before getting into the next steps uh or maybe I should wrap up with next steps, we'll continue to uh uh receive input on this final third version until June 15. And thank you for every one of you that delegated. Um we we we also received the the written uh delegations. We will uh hope to bring the final version to council in in July. Uh then once that takes place, it has to go to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to for their review and approval as they have the final uh say and then the implementation and that goes with everything that has uh been put forward will continue to be um uh rolled out in the form of uh community design guidelines that still need to be prepared. uh signing bylaw updates as they pertain to to all this um height strategies that we are putting forward, future studies, reviews, uh transition to new policy framework as well as an affordable housing housing needs assessment. Thank you. >> Um thank you for your presentation, Alexis and UT. Uh we will hold all questions until the staff report is on the floor for discussion. Can I have a mover and seconded to receive the delegation? Moved by uh councelor how second by councelor Vardy. Resolve that the presentation from O2 planning and design be received. All in favor? That's carried. All right. Can I have a mover and seconder to get the staff report on the floor? Moved by councelor Frank, second by councelor Dvoli. Uh, questions from councel. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. Go ahead. Sorry. Gears. >> Uh, thank you [clears throat] um, Mr. Mayor and uh, and council for uh, for this evening. I just want to thank our our consultants for the the presentation and all the work that's gone into the official plan to date. This is our third draft of the official plan. Um [clears throat] we did want to release the third draft and give the opportunity for additional input from the public. Um a significant amount of work has gone into the prep preparation of the official plan and >> [clears throat] >> um getting to this final draft. Uh we've done a significant amount of consultation as well as referenced by Alexis in the presentation. There's been a number of engagement opportunities um through public information centers, Tourette's, uh walking tours, and also our formal um public meeting. So, I just wanted to to highlight all of the the engagement that's gone into to date and um also reference the the work uh has been um documented through the staff reports. Um the first uh staff report at the public meeting in February, an update report in April to planning and development committee highlighted the changes from the first draft to the second draft. And now the report before you this evening highlights the changes further to um the plan through this third draft. So that's just a high level overview and we're happy to take any questions. >> Great. Thank you, Kirsten. Uh we'll start with councelor uh DeFlavo. >> Thank you mayor through you. It's just questions right now, right? Not comments. Okay. Um, so first of all, thank you, Kirsten. >> It can be questions or comments. >> Okay. So, go ahead. >> Clearly, you're all listening because you keep coming back with different revisions. Um, first I I just want to ask a few questions. So, uh, Ut, you you talked about um affordable housing and attainable housing strategies. Now, I know we're limited to what we can actually put in the official plan. Um so are we clearly setting our next step then as uh you know a a housing strategy an affordable housing strategy that can deliver uh on on what we're and have we explored it to the fullest extent that we can within the official plan framework so that that way we can build on it with that strategy once we're done this and of course we got to do zoning but you know how does that where do we go from here with that I guess is my first question. through you Mr. Mayor and and I will also uh invite uh uh Kirsten to to answer but from the official plan perspective the most important component will be to outline the the percentages of affordable we don't know the the full extent of the definition of attainable but at least affordable housing that we can include into an official plan. So the the the commission of a strategy that really further further uh enables the unrolling of a strategy is is is something that um uh we see being implemented across the region and and I find them find it helpful. But from the official plan perspective, it's exactly having very clear parameters of what are your minimum um uh percentages whether it's for rental or or ownership housing of uh affordability that the the the the city the town is considering when provos come into into place. that's that that number needs to be included and that's what sets the stage for [snorts] the whole asking and how do you get that 20 or that 10. >> Uh thank you through you Mr. Mayor. So yes, just to to build on UT's response, we are including the definition of affordable housing within the the official plan and we are including the percentages that we're carrying that forward from the the region's Niger official plan. But the intent following um the adoption of the plan and ultimately the approval of the plan would be to do some more um detailed work on um the housing needs [clears throat] to look at what our current um uh supply is in terms of different types of housing units um and looking at specifically what um Grimby needs in terms of providing direction for affordable and attainable housing. Um and that would come forward through um a study and an additional amendment to the official plan when we have those details. >> Thank you, Mayor Thyu. Um, so what I'm getting from that is what we've understood before and that is that what's affordable in Grimby is not the same as what's affordable in another municipality and and it'll be based on the data that we the sorry I can add to that actually uh through you Mr. Mayor. Um, so we do actually have more details um when we're looking at um developments that want to to put in affordable units. Um, so through the the DC Act, there was a bulletin that was released that specifies affordable um prices or affordable rates uh for all municipalities. So if we were looking at imp uh implementing affordable units, uh we would seek to uh look at the affordable rates within that uh bulletin and implement that through an affordable housing agreement. So just kind of following it through the process, we will have the policy policies within the official plan. But when we're looking at development applications or implementing affordable units and applying affordable incentives, um we would be looking at those rates. Thank you, mayor. That's thank you for the clarification, Kirsten. Um through you again. So Utay did a and and Bianca actually at the heritage meeting did a really good job of explaining the Grimby Beach uh concerns, but I think that I I still don't think that everybody's understanding how the new official plan will replace the secondary plan. So if and again I hate to to beat a dead horse, but I I think that it's important that everybody understands step by step how one replaces the other. So, uh, you know, I this is the time to have that conversation and I think if if you don't mind, whether it's, uh, Alexis or UT or or or Kirstston, whoever can elaborate on that a little bit further and really kind of get into the weeds a little bit more about and the details about how one replaces the other. I think that would make people feel a little bit more comfortable about the transition. >> Kirsten, yeah, go ahead with that one. >> Sure. Thank you. Through you, Mr. mayor. Uh so yes, we have heard uh from a number of residents and received a number of submissions related to Grimby Beach. Um we do recognize the importance of Grimby Grimby Beach and we want to ensure that we are um including a policy framework that's going to support and um guide that heritage preservation. Um through our consultation with the province it was recommended that we remove secondary plans for the official plan going forward for approve approval by the minister. Uh so that is what we did. We incorporated the policy direction in that area specific policy. Um we have tested those policies but we have been going through a series of exercises internally with staff. So looking at development applications that might come in or that have come in in the past and using the new official plan to test those policies. So and we will continue to do that with the third draft before we bring forward the final recommendation. So the the way that we've um we've taken the secondary plan, we've consolidated the policies where there is duplication. We've included all of the um definitions and directions for the different areas of that secondary plan. So the core area um I think it's northwest and the south west um areas we've included that direction we have the policy framework that's going to support and guide um that heritage preservation and um preserve that historic value of the area. Um we also just I guess maybe to to clarify uh the site plan would only be applied to areas where there's that commercial or institutional um type of development. we can no longer use site plan control for individual properties. However, um within this current zoning and what we would in we would uh include in a future um zoning exercises to ensure that we will um maintain the the permissions right now and that um we can utilize other planning tools that will help to ensure that compatible development will happen within that area. Thank you, Mayor Through. So, thank you for the clarification and the internal testing makes me feel a little more comfortable. It might be time for the next term of council. It might be time for council to explore a heritage district for that area to kind of [snorts] use that umbrella if we if if it's a pl it's an area. I I I'm comfortable with your explanation, but at the same time, from a heritage perspective and being a heritage person, I I would like that further protection. So maybe it's time to explore with the residents again the idea of a heritage district uh in that area. Um so last thing I wanted to say, mayor, was the I find myself returning I listen sorry I apologize for being late. I was listening to the everything on the way in. I was at graduation at school, so I tried to make it as fast as I could. people kept using the word evolution and um I agree that Grimby has to evolve but I heard the it's interesting because I heard people from opposite sides of the spectrum using the word evolution the people from the the homebuilders association people from the opposite sides saying evolution but um and communities aren't frozen in time and I get that but evolution is a gradual process uh it occurs through small changes over time it doesn't happen overnight and each step has to be built upon what's already existing. And I still don't think we're there when it comes to the downtown. I still don't think eight is an appropriate number for the number of stories for the downtown. Um I I think a downtown that's historically been defined by two, three, and fourtory buildings at the most can evolve uh to straight from that to eight stories. And and I so I still, you know, I understand that four might not be it anymore, right? But I think that six has to be it. And I think that six has to be it because then when somebody comes in with seven or eight, they're going above what we've already set. If we set six is the maximum, we know we're going to see more. But six is the maximum allows us to say six is the maximum that we want to see in the downtown and have a something to to start with with. Um I'm also concerned that we're overlooking some of the missing middle still in in this plan. And I'll put that in writing and I'll and before the final revision stuff comes in. Um you know the the duplexes, triplexes and and forplexes uh town houses, tack town houses, the kind of a the stuff that we we it's all either highrises or detached or semi- detached in Grimby. And we don't see a lot. I know that we have some of that inventory that exists from decades ago when it was being built in the in the 50s and 60s, but we don't have any recent evidence of that. So, I think that whatever we can do to promote some of that middle is important. Um, I'll put a lot of my what I have to say in writing, mayor. The the other thing I I wanted to say though is um around the GO station the and I'll I'll keep it quick. uh growth is important but so is context and I think that around the GO station we can't go from that gi we have to consider the the existing neighborhoods and I'm concerned about those giant buildings that are being allowed in the go station area beside green belt and beside and beside single detached subdivisions without any kind of transition without any kind of consideration of people who have lived there for decades. So I I I know that you've addressed some of that. Um I just think Casablanca Boulevard, for example, might be a place that we want to explore more in more depth and create specific policies for the whole of Casablanca Boulevard. Um I'll put the rest in writing. Thank you, mayor. Sorry for all the most of it was question. >> Kirsten, do you want to respond still? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I was just going to go back to one of the the earlier points from councelor Delavio about um various tools and just reference that um we did receive uh direction through council endorsement of um the heritage committee minutes to look at those tools and come back with a report. >> Who wants to go next? Councelor Frank. >> Thank you, Mr. [clears throat] Mayor. There's not much to cover now that Nick's covered it all. [laughter] So, maybe I'll just reiterate some of what he's already said. Um, this the whole council has been inundated with letters and emails and phone calls and texts and so on and so forth related to the official plan. This is our third third strike at it. Um, but it all boils down to actually three or four different really serious things that people are really concerned about. And I'll speak to the beaches first of all. totally endorse what councelor Delavio said and I think I don't think we've yet convinced our beach area residents that the new official plan is going to give them protection uh once we take away the secondary plan and I want to make if if I just want to make sure that they are really really comfortable and really understand what's going on and that they are covered for what their concerns are that's really so important we spent two terms of counsel or more working with the beaches on their their secondary plan and the heritage and the heritage document. So I just want to make sure that when they they are totally 100% comfortable and understand that they are protected. So I just one thing I want to make sure that's in there and I know this is something that council also said. Uh the other big thing I think we see we're hearing about is where the uh intensity is in terms of the downtown area. uh and I do think that 12 stories is rather high and I don't know why we have both we can have eight stories but we can go to 12 as depending on site plan so on so forth why don't we just cap it why do we have to why do we even have to go to uh mentioning that we can go to 12 we just c can we just cap it at 8 or 7 and just go from there do we because it kind of leaves it open a bit and I think that's another big concern that people have And I I think we need to cover that off. I know we can't do that tonight, but so hopefully we will be able to do that, Kirsten. Um I don't know if you want to comment any of that. You probably have a little bit already. U go ahead. I have a couple of comments as well. >> Uh thank you. Uh and through you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, we have received lots of of comments related to the downtown um neighborhood designation and and the building heights. Um, one of the ways that we were looking at addressing those comments is capping it at the eight with the ability to go to 12 through certain permissions. Uh, following through on um, like our planning tools, that would mean within the zoning, it would be capped at a at a building height of eight stories. It would require a zoning bylaw amendment. So, it would be a public process. um and the the policies in the official plan would apply through that public process for um the applicant to demonstrate why 12 would be appropriate. Um so that was the approach that we've taken for for the downtown district or downtown neighborhood area. And um just to I guess reinforce UT's point earlier, the policies within the plan, it does have to clarify that taller buildings up to 12 stories is within the downtown neighborhood designation only, not for all of the downtown um designation. So that that clarity is is required within that policy. >> If I could follow up. So, um, in terms of intensification, if we can't accommodate [clears throat] the intensification that we want in the downtown area and district, can we just up the intensity to offset those numbers over in another area like maybe around where the GO train's going or down by Casablanca and areas like that? So if we if we down if we take down the size of the buildings and the intensification in the downtown area, can we up the numbers in another area to accommodate the forecast which I which is 51,000. And we all know that 51,000 is a is a projection. And at the end of the day, it's going to be the market that's going to dictate how many houses get built in this town or any town for that matter. So it may be pie in the sky. It may not be. But 51,000 is the number we have. So I don't know if we'll ever get to that number. Maybe we will. Uh and 25 years is a long time. I mean, look what happened to look how the world's changed in one year. So you know, so it is really put your finger up in in into the wind and hopefully you got the right direction. So I I just I don't know. It'll be it'll be market dictated at the end of the day. [snorts] So I don't know if you can So in ter terms of intensification, can we shift intensification to another area to offset the intensification downtown area? >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor. I mean, I I think it's it's a good point and I appreciate the comments. Um part of the the feedback that we did receive through the engagement was that people wanted to live in the downtown. So that that's reflected in the plan right now. We also have to keep in mind that um by increasing um some of the population in the downtown that's going to support the businesses is going to attract more more businesses as well. Um there is a possibility obviously we're going to have to be tracking our numbers over time. So, we do need to um once we have our official plan in place, we're going to be monitoring and tracking how growth is occurring, where it's occurring, making sure that we have the appropriate infrastructure. Um and that's being rolled out at the same time as well. So, um typically an official plan, a brand new official plan under the act is reviewed at a 10-year mark. I would suggest that we check in at the 5year mark. Um and we have a continuous monitoring program where we're reporting to council on um different uh KPIs. >> Thank you. Um we keep talking about downtown as if we have only one downtown. Uh we do have two downtowns and the businesses over on the Casablanca area. There's probably as many or more businesses in the Casablanca area than there is in downtown over here. And so we need to ensure that we include that language in our in our official plan. I mean because I live down there now so I hear it all the time. So whenever I go down walk across the street for pizza, whatever the case might be, I'm listening to the merchants and they're not recognized as being a downtown even though we call them aby on the lake downtown. So I mean I just want to make sure we we kind of fit them into this puzzle as well. Uh a couple of questions. Um, do we have a deadline for submission of the official plan? Is there a deadline that is legislated to us by the by Queens Park or >> uh through you Mr. Mayor? Uh, so based on the legislation, we are supposed to have our our plan in conformity with um with pol provincial policy and I guess the regional official plan within a year of the region approving it. But that um is now been downloaded to us. So, we now have the Niagara official plan as well. Getting our plan approved um as soon as possible puts us in a in a good position having clear um direction and um policy that's in conformity with provincial um direction, provincial plans um and uh legislation will put us in in a much better position. It will also allow us to undertake the work that we need to do in terms of community design guidance and updating our zoning bylaw and all of the other tools that would support the official plan. So, I would say that technically under the act, the legislation is a year after a regional plan is approved, but we're we're past that and we now actually have the regional plan. Um, I I would say it is important to get the plan approved as soon as possible >> in this term. One final one final question. Um, if we don't pass the official plan, if it if it doesn't if we can't agree and it doesn't get passed, can we operate without an official plan? I mean, is how complicated is that? And that's my final question, Mr. Mayor. >> Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor. So we are we are operating with an official plan. It will the current official plan that we have that was adopted by council in 2009 and approved by the OM in 2012 um will remain in place until the the new official plan is approved by uh the minister. >> Thank you Kristen and thanks to your staff. I know you guys have put a huge amount of work into this. Thank you so much. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Councelor Vardy. >> Uh thank you through you Mr. Mayor. Uh, a couple of questions. Um, somewhere in there, the u you you had a number of sort of a population number for downtown, a number that that you wanted to hit for downtown. I can't remember which slide that it was on. >> Oh, it's you, Mr. Mayor. So we have uh persons and jobs um uh allocated for the downtown [clears throat] 125 >> 125 >> persons and jobs >> per hectare >> per hectare. >> Okay. And do you know what it is now? [clears throat] Because I guess what I'm going where I'm going with all this is um you know we have the Wolverton that's going up. We have Century condos that are almost done. We have [snorts] something that's going to go up on John. Not sure how high, how big, whatever, because it hasn't come to us yet. Um although we've we've had big numbers put forward that are kind of pie in the sky. >> [snorts] >> Um, so I'd like to know with what is coming uh on very shortly, um, are we going to be are we going to be hitting that mark fairly soon, that 125 per hector? Do we know what we are today and what we will be with those three properties? and then sort of just to give us a sense of how much more >> [snorts] >> um growth in the downtown that that we are kind of envisioning um to meet that kind of number >> through you Mr. Mayor. Um I think that's the direction we can take forward. I don't have the exact number of how where we are as persons and jobs per hector and how much persons and jobs per hector with the pipeline as it is. >> Yes. >> So, uh yeah, that's >> so that's that's one thing I'd like to know. Um the second thing is do we have an area of intensification down by the new school? because there's lots of property there and [snorts] you know that's where you're going to see families want to be located near a school that that we should have an area of intensification for that area not just sort of not just downtown not just GO station it should there should be one there as well >> uh thank you for those comments for you Mr. there. So down by the the new West Niagara Secondary School, if that that's the school you're you're speaking of, I I assume. [laughter] Um there it is identified as a node. Um so that was um part of the comments that UT made about the employment area along um Qua Trail. Um it does it is part of the the corridor. So we will see some intensification along um the main street corridor and within that that node area there is um a higher persons and jobs per hector along the the corridor and within the nodes than the rest of the neighborhood area. >> So why don't we um make it similar to what we're envisioning for downtown because that's kind of another sub area that [snorts] definitely could be developed. I I worry that a note is not enough. [snorts] >> And then sorry, >> did you want to respond to that or >> I Yeah, I can. Yes. Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh so, uh my understanding is that the the intensification areas were identified as the protected major transit station area around the GO and the downtown. Um and that was through intensification work that was done previously prior to this current um draft of the official plan. Um as well as a health health center area. Um I I don't believe that that was ever identified by the consultants or directed by council to investigate um a center area around the the new uh high school. >> I think it's worth looking at. Um, and then the I I guess the last thing, you know, that you're saying, well, you know, we'll make the zoning for downtown eight stories and [snorts] people would need a, you know, like a ZBA to to go higher. [snorts] But we know we know if you say eight, developers are going to want 10. If you say six, they'll probably reach for eight. If you say 12, they'll want 14. So I think I [snorts] I think we should cap it at a lower number, not eight, because we know when developers see see eight, they see 10 or more. So I think we really need to bring it down so that that that area of like give and take on the town's part um shrinks a little bit because I I think we know we know we just like to have six but we also [snorts] know if anybody goes to OLT they're going to get whatever they want. So at least if we c it at six you know that's going to be harder to make a a case for 10. So, um, I vote in favor of bringing that number down. That's it for me. >> Councelor Sharwa, >> uh, through your mayor Jordan. Thank you. So, I'm going to thank the counselors that have identified the number one issue that I'm going to ask for is for us to cap the downtown at six. Um, no clauses, no opportunity for 12, nothing. Absolutely nothing more than six. Unless it like 8 is like the absolute highest. I don't even want to see that. I' I'd prefer it to be six. Um, but no no um opportunity to um allow for 12 or anything above six. Um, and I would say we we keep hearing the same thing. It's it's the downtown. And like I've been talking about this since we started. I was disappointed to see that this 12 stories was still after all of the talks and all of the comments and the the feedback from the community that we're still having this on the third draft. There's been so many improvements, but this is one that is going to haunt us forever. So, I this is one that I'm going to ask that when we um this comes to council on July 16th that we have the um we have it split so that we're approving the all the different areas um because this one I don't think council will agree to um which I'm very happy to hear because that is definitely the um the talk of W three residents and I would say just the community as a whole. So, um, that's my thought on that one. Um, [snorts] just with the language, um, and I've spoken with about this before, I'd like it to be stricter. Um, and we have we have made improvements with the shoods and shells. Um, priority being that the the language surrounding density, stories, um, and parkland are very clear. I I don't want any ambiguity in that language. If we're talking the aesthetic piece, um that, you know, professional opinion, you know, that part I will leave to staff. Um but I I feel like, you know, there there should be some certainty like um Bridget had said for the community. So I would just like to tighten up any of those little uh gray areas. Um in the one section it says that uh a future affordable and attainable housing strategy may establish additional policies. So my fear here is if we've built this in that the um the provincial government is going to come up with some wishy-washy policy to allow um something that is not attainable, call it attainable and add more stories. So um again this is something that professional opinion if you can just tighten that up so that that is not an opportunity um for extra density under affordable housing that will not actually be affordable housing. Um and last comment uh actually sorry one more um so we're going to grow another 20,000. We have a part-time fire uh firefighting uh department right now. Is there sorry is there another fire department that's built into this when we have to go to full-time? Kirsten, >> uh thank you for the question through you, Mr. Mayor. So we have been consulting with all staff departments including uh fire and um my understanding is that that is part of their um I guess overall plan for obviously ensuring there's appropriate coverage for the community. Uh so we have had those discussions with the fire department. We um through the uh official plan there is uh policy direction for community service facilities and providing um those opportunities. Uh those are ongoing discussions though. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and just last comment, can you just walk us through your your communication with the provincial government because you know a lot of times there's um and and I I I I do blame the the province a little bit for this. They will pretend as though it's this is all the municipality when we know it's really the province. So here we have an opportunity and I know that you guys have gone back and forth with the province and you've you've helped them. um they've given guidance as far as what that they would like to see and when this is approved I want us to go back to the province again and say hey uh reminder this is what you've approved we don't want to see this come to the OOLT and and people get their way after so can you just like walk us through the communications right now so people are clear that uh it's actually the province that told you to do a lot of this so we can hold them accountable if developers later go to the OOLT. Even though this is a super progressive plan, we're going to hold them accountable so that their appointed representatives are not going to approve these OOLT applications and appeals. Uh thank you for the question through you, Mr. Mayor. So, our official plan is required to be in conformity with provincial um legislation, policy, and all of the provincial plans that are applicable for the town of Grimby. Um so, that is the case. um we've been incorporating that direction. We've incorporated incorporated the direction from the Niagara official plan as well um through our engagement process. So we do have to send the plan to the province for their um the review. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing um does a one- window review for us. So they reach out to all the other ministries and provides the comments in a consolidated format to us. Um those are all included in the the package. um the long packages that Lauren was very uh gracious to put together and include in um the report that provides the details of the comments that were received and how they've been incorporated. We've had several comments or sorry uh meetings with them and conversations with how we've incorporated the comments where we've had um questions or we've needed further clarification. We've uh reached out to them um in particular with the secondary plans. I know that's been a hot topic of discussion with the community. Um we wanted to ensure that there was policy that remains in the plan to provide direction that's going to um to uh support the Grimby Beach and that does recognize all the work that's gone into um creating that secondary plan and ensuring those policies uh remain and exist within our official plan. We uh did not want to run into the issue of sending a plan with the secondary plan and having that removed by the province before it's approved or um the issue of having our old official plan remain in place so that the secondary plan policies um can continue um because then that could create confusion between um various plans. So the the path forward was to incorporate the policy to ensure there's policy direction within when the within the plan. So we we do know that um we have a little bit of opportunity to talk with the province about how we're making those changes and getting their guidance. Once we send it to them, they are the approval authority. Um we will be in a better position as I mentioned earlier that having a clear consistent um and up-to-date uh plan that's in line with provincial policy will put us in a good position uh for any future development applications. >> Thank you, Kirsten. Thank you everybody. Councelor Christeni. >> Thank you through you, Chair. Um, thank you very much for um some of the the heights you've already reduced in particular in the Magnolia uh Gage Cedar James area. Um reducing that from six to three. I I think that's a great decision. Um I'm still not happy with downtown. Um I'll tell you my concerns. Uh I feel like eight is still too high. I feel like it should be capped at six. I feel like there should be no clause for 12 whatsoever. Um the province already allows increased height and density for affordable or rental, I believe. So if it's capped at six, there's already that sort of provincial allowance. Uh I feel like eight is still too high. Um Main Street I would like to see capped at four. Uh no allowance to six whatsoever. I think in keeping with the heritage, Main Street itself should be capped at four. Um, language. I hear the delegates and I absolutely love what Bridget said. I wrote it down. What residents want what is expected, not encouraged. And I think clear direction and clear language is is uh clearly something that residents want to see in this official plan. Um, tree canopy. So, uh, I've had residents, uh, bring up that they would like to see, uh, tree canopy policy within the official plan. I believe Town of Pelum has it. We sit, if I remember correctly, at about 5% of a tree canopy where 30% is a healthy. So, um, I know that residents would like to see something like that in the official plan. And Grimby Beach. Okay, I won't go over what everybody's already said, but what [laughter] I will say, we've had many conversations about this. What I would like to request is release of the communication with the province. I think that it's not that people don't believe you. It's just I think that because other municipalities are keeping secondary plans and there's a lot of information out there. Ford Erie I think has theirs. Nagon Lake is you know submitting but keeping and I think that's creating a lot of the confusion and sort of that uneasiness about it. And I think if we could sort of release where the province has told us this is what we want to see then residents will will feel a little more comfortable um with that. I'm not sure if that's possible or we could communicate with them to to let us know. Um that is something that I would like to see. >> Thank you uh councelor Dvo. >> Thank you Mayor Jordan. Uh most of the comments have been made and I will say that I agree with them. Um but I would just like some clarification from our director of planning about the 12 stories and I know we keep coming circling back but is it the province who is setting those guidelines saying 12 stories or is that's just a number we came up with? Maybe you can just give us some background and how it ties into the provincial policies. Uh thank you for the question and through you Mr. Mayor. Uh so the um the 12 stories came about looking at the uh the built form of the um the official plan. So we had included policies that spoke to mid-rise within the downtown um and particularly the downtown neighborhood area. Within that mid-rise, it um it allowed for up to 12 stories. Um, in receiving the comments from uh from the first draft and the second draft of the official plan, um, we looked at ways that we could ensure that we were um, developing or seeing appropriate development within the downtown neighborhood area and that's where we came with up with the the policy direction that would allow for growth and development within that area. Um, and have those performance measures that would be applied through a development application in the future. Uh, I think it's important to to remember as well that the downtown neighborhood area does apply to three different areas of our downtown overall downtown district within the um secondary uh sorry the official plan got the secondary plan on my my brain. Um the official plan uh and that's includes like south of Main Street along Elm Street. It includes up Ontario Street in the John Street area and then it also includes the um plaza uh the so Canadian Tire Plaza with the the former central school site as well. So looking at a policy framework that's going to support growth and development on all three of those downtown neighborhood designations. So, as followup to that, I I think for many of us, as we get farther away from the core of downtown, between Christian Elm, I'll say, we probably become a little more comfortable with more stories. Um, but not within the immediate downtown. Um, and so I guess I'm still circling back to the 12. you know, if we if we get challenged by the by a developer and they say, "Well, we still meet your exceptional criteria and we should still have 12." Um, do you think that the province would be supportive, more supportive of 12 than if we simply kept it at 8 or six or whatever the number is we come up with? >> Uh, through you, Mr. I think that's a difficult thing to to respond to at this point in time because I don't know what the the application would be or the context. What I can say is that we would have a [snorts] a current official plan in place that provides policy uh direction and guidance for growth in specific areas. Um it would come down to what the development is, what supporting information they provide um and how it it meets the overall intent of the official plan. So it's it is really important that we don't look at in individual policies. You do have to read the official plan in its entirety and apply every policy that applies to the the specific um property or area. Um so they would have to demonstrate that it is it does meet the overall intent of the official plan and like I said earlier um we have identified both the protected major transit station area and the downtown as intensification areas. Although obviously the protected major transit station area is going to be a higher density and a more intense development that's going to support the GO station. I think my concern is that you similar to my fellow counselors that when we leave 12 out there, of course, then a potential developer comes along and tries to find [snorts] every argument they can to meet the criteria that we have set for exceeding eight and going up to 12. Um, and even if we restrict it to aid, I I think I my concern is still will the province come back even in the review of our official plan and say, well, aid is simply too low. You need to change this, this, and this. Um, and so do you have any I I guess I'll try and summarize my question and my concern. Do you have any uh concerns or thoughts of what the provincial reaction will be to an official plan that does and maxes out at six or eight and does not allow 12 at all? >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor. I I do think the province does recognize that there are different contexts um for official plans because each official plan is um based on the requirements of that local municipality. Um, I don't I don't know that they would um look at specific building heights as long as overall we're achieving our direction of accommodating growth, accommodating employment, ensuring that we have a mix of um built form and different types of housing um that we have opportunities to accommodate that growth. I I think that's the overall direction that the province is looking for. >> Thank you. Councelor Bradzy. >> Thank you, Mayor Surio. I just wanted to to ask for a little clarity on the uh the process. So, is it once council approves the official plan that it goes to the review period with the the minister and can uh can the minister reject our official plan? >> Uh through you, Mr. Mayor. So once council adopts the official plan, uh we do have to send the record. So that's a required information to the province. Um and then it goes uh to their staff for review. It is posted um on the ERO. So it is open for any public input as well. So they will receive any comments or um submissions from from residents or um organizations through that process. and then the um the minister would be making a decision on our official plan. >> Okay. And lastly, I I won't uh repeat any of the downtown comments, but I agree. But do we uh do do we at all fear that the minister would reject it or how do we feel about how they would stand with what with where we're currently at draft three? >> Uh three, Mr. Mayor. Sorry, I I realized that I forgot to answer that part of the question. Uh so the uh the ministry will modify the plan as they see um appropriate to implement any uh um conformity requirements for um the official plan with provincial legislation or policy. Um I don't see [clears throat] them rejecting the official plan because I do think that it provide it is implementing in its current form right now is implementing the direction and requirements of the province. >> Councelor How? Thank you through uh through you, chair. Um on page 16, I believe it of your report u there's a mention there of the cannabis and hemp. Can we if we've got an opportunity to tighten that up maybe a little bit more? So Lauren, >> I just uh through you, Mr. Mayor. Uh thank you so much for the question. And I I wanted to speak to that specifically. Um I would say that the policy set uh actually has been um tightened pretty considerably. Um not only does it speak to cannabis, but it also speaks to industrial hemp um as well as uh lists a number of other requirements and uh I believe management plans as well uh that would be required. So even based off of the the current policies that are in the current plan, this is actually a tightening I see of those policies. >> Okay. to to follow up on that. It's my understanding that the one right by that's feeding the high school like into the that wasn't very nice. Uh as it could be uh that could be taken away with the proper fan ventilation systems uh that were not put in there were w were required. But there is a way it can be handled. it it can be handled that that the skunk smell but there has to be a a willingness on the part of whoever pro goes ahead with it but it is noxious and it is not very pleasant and um leave it that we mentioned a campground as well have we got a campground >> uh through you Mr. Mayor. Um, yes. So, we there are a number of uh private campgrounds that already exist in the town. That's a use that's already permitted through the current official plan. So, uh, as we were reviewing, we uh we realized that we wanted to ensure that that permission could still be there. >> Going to have It's interesting. But lastly, I guess, and I'll have my kick at the uh at the stories. Um, and I confirmed with Kirsten, my house where it sits is right on the edge. It could be 12 stories at my house. And you know when you come to that realization you go that's just a whole lot because I mean that probably to about the escarment height um just so far out of um but the context of the town and what you want the town and try to keep it like that. Uh, so I have trouble even with six on that side of Elm Street. And that's not because I can make money off my property because I'll be dead before I even anybody does that down in there. So um no don't you hope >> anyways uh you know it's it is it comes you know when we talk about the base of the escarment um I know that been the sun in Sydney and Sydney is like that and but it's happened over time uh but they don't go real high they go fours and sixes along there makes quite a from but they stay away from that. They bring them away from the escar and I would see no reason whatsoever to ever put something along the base of the escarment. So that's uh that's about it. But Lauren, thank you very much. Kirsten, thank you very much. You guys have nailed it. >> Councelor Garcani. >> Thank you chair. I just wanted to touch on um the employment area in uh both downtown and downtown Ginsby on the lake. Um so in the downtown area, the innovation area is a maximum of 10 stories. Um and that's in like the Ontario, Clark Street, Lincoln Avenue. I feel like that's way too much density for that area. um really dangerous traffic area and I feel like adding that height there doesn't fit and it doesn't um it won't be safe. Um I'd like to see that height swapped with the downtown Grisby on the lake area though because they have the same employment areas. Uh but their maximum is only four to six stories and they're um there's a division of the rail the railway tracks between the neighborhood so it's not going to affect the neighborhood beside it and uh and on the other side the maximum is 22 stories. So I feel like the height of 10 stories in the Ginsby on the lake uh density area would fit better and just swapping the height with uh the one downtown to the maximum of six and then having the other one 10 All right. And uh seeing no further questions, uh we can make that decision to change the uh downtown to six with a resolution right now and give council direction. >> Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. >> Can we have main street? Just no. >> You have to make an amendment. >> We've got uh councelor Vardy second. Councelor Sharw moving it. >> You can read it out if they want to make. >> Yeah, I'll read it out. And if uh we want to make an amendment, that's up to council. Resolve that council direct staff that the height be no more than six stories in the downtown district and staff provide details of any implications to this change in the final recommendation. So, we happy with that. >> Do you want me to build Do we want to add in review the downtown employment areas for building heights? >> Yeah, we could do that. We could review the downtown employment area and building Heights as well. That could be added in. >> So, I'd like that. Plus, I just like Main Street. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, yeah, I'd like to see the employment area capped because if we're capping at six, we don't want to be going up to 10. Um, but the other thing I'd like to see Main Street itself remain at a four a fourstory height limit. Are you're okay with that? Great. So, >> well, I have to read it as amended now. So, And sorry, can we also do this as a recorded vote as well? Is it possible? Thank you. >> Go ahead >> through your mayor. So I I agree with six stories in what we consider the traditional downtown. Uh, so anything Ontario Street, Christy, uh, you know, that area we have there are I think Kirstston spoke to it. I I I the um Canadian Tire Plaza and the old central public school site that in order for that site to be worthy of redevelopment might require higher density. So, I don't know if we want to make an exception for that site or not because I I believe that that's considered part of the downtown and not something that we're I don't think that I I'm speaking for me. That's not something that I think of when I think of the downtown. I I I think that those are sites that are appropriate for higher density and would require higher higher density in order for redevelopment to occur. So, um I I think that that needs to be an exception. And I think that we need to define what we mean by the downtown. I I agree with Council Gangi about four stories on Main Street. I agree with six stories. That's why I brought it up in the first place. But there are a couple of sites that we need to be flexible on. And I think that those sites are ones that we might want to leave out. >> Councelor Defoy, do you have a comment on this resolution? I I was just going to agree with that. That's what I was sort of alluding to before when I say as we get farther out from the core of the downtown, I am more amendable to adding more stories. So maybe the wording of the resolution needs to be just to refer it back to staff to look at that uh suggestion that we have and then to come back to us in the next draft. Councelor Sh, >> I'm I'm fine with counsel uh with uh councelor DeFlavio's um point for the for that [snorts] uh specific area, but I just want to I don't know if we can do this almost separately. I don't know if that would help um so that we define the sixtory cap um the other area, but I don't know if that's through a friendly amendment. I just want to make sure that that part is is not referred back to staff. >> The cler's just working right now. So, councelor Frank. >> No, I just wanted to suggest Mr. mayor that if if we pass a if we pass a general motion, we just might leave something out that we need to put in and if we if we make it too general, I mean, I think I think pass said sending it back to staff to have a look at if there's a pocket of areas like that that we can exclude and we might box ourselves in. Councelor Shawa. >> Um, so again, I don't know if it would be helpful to separate this as two separate motions because I I agree if if the second part if we want to bring that to staff. I just want to make sure that the sixtory clause is separate and that's dealt with today if that's possible. But I'm >> that you don't know what the other areas might look like. >> You might include some of the areas. Yeah, if if we if we passed the motion you're talking about, we could have an area in there which could qualify in the same instance as what council deflavy was talking about. That's what I'm saying. So that's why I think staff needs to look at it and see if there's a pocket or two of another areas in there which might qualify to go to the higher heights. We just have to be very careful we don't box oursel in. That's all I'm saying. All right. So if we split it into two, we have uh the first part with resolve that council direct the height be no more than six stories in the downtown district and four stories on Main Street and staff provide details of any implications to this change in the final recommendation. And then if we split that out, the second part, that council directs staff to review the downtown employment areas for building heights and that council directs staff to review the PMTSA and downtown employment areas. So if we have those as two separate resolutions, council's happy with that. >> All right. Okay. Right. So, I'll read the the first section first. Moved by councelor Shawa, second by councelor Vardy. Resolve that council direct that the height be no more than six stories in the downtown districts and four stories on Main Street and staff provide details of any implications to this change in the final recommendations. Uh, East Gri's been asked for. So, can we build that way? All right, that is unanimously approved. Uh, now our second resolution. Uh, I'll just keep the same mover and secondary. Move by councelor Shawwa, a second by councelor Vardy. resolved that council direct staff to review the downtown employment areas for building heights and also direct staff to review the PMTSA and downtown employment areas. Uh use escribe please to vote for that Right. That's carried unanimously as well. >> All right. Um, we're just going to receive the report now. Move by councelor Frank, second by councelor Devoli, resolve that report PA26-18 provides draft official plan June 2026 dated June 1st, 2026 be received for information. All in favor? That's carried. Can I have a mover and seconder for the Mountain View Lemonade Day proclamation? Moved by councelor Frank, second by councelor Kstani. Whereas family and children's services fax Niagara has been dedicated to protecting and supporting children and improving the lives of vulnerable children, youth and families across Niagara Peninsula since 1898. And whereas Mountain View Building Group and other generous sponsors are supporting Fax Niagara Foundation in these efforts by encouraging children and families to give back to their community by registering online and setting up lemonade stands across the town of Ginsby and the Niagara region on Saturday, June 13th, 2026. And whereas Mountain View Building Group and other great community sponsors have generously pro provided 100 Lemon a Day kits so every family and child can have the resources needed to successfully participate and so that all the funds raised by children go directly to sending vulnerable children supported by Fax Niagara to summer camps. And whereas by instilling the values of community, generosity, and goodwill in the next generation, Mountain View Building Group and other generous sponsors are helping build a brighter future for Niagara. And whereas the town of Ginsby commends the hundreds of young citrus squeezing children for their philanthropy and hard work, generosity, goodwill, and for making our community a much better place to live. Therefore, be it resolved that I, Mayor Jeff Jordan, do hereby proclaim June 13, 2026 as Mountain View Lemonade Day for Fax Niagara in the town of Ginsby. Be it further resolved that council hereby encourages children of Ginsby to participate in the annual Mountain View Lemon A Day for Fax Niagara and encourages all citizens of Ginsby to support these children in their efforts by generously donating in person or online to the Mountain View Lemonade Day stands and help many children as many children from the Niagara region to experience summer camp in 2026. All in favor? That's carried. I would now like to take a moment to recognize Niagara's 2SLGBTQ plus communities and acknowledge pride Niagara's leadership in fostering safe uh safer and more inclusive spaces, strengthening social connection, providing outreach and education and advancing local advoc advocacy through the throughout the region. Pride Month is not just a celebration. is a powerful reminder of the progress we have made in embracing the beautiful tapestry of identities that make our community thrive. It is time to honor the struggles and triumphs of the 2LGBTQ plus community and reaffirm our commitment to diversity, inclusion, and acceptance. Thank you, Pride Niagara, for all the work that you do for the residents of Niagara. Today, let us celebrate diversity, promote acceptance, and foster a town where love knows no boundaries. Together we can create a future where everyone can live authentically and proudly. Thank you and happy Pride Month. Can I have a mover and second to receive the correspondence? Moved by councelor Frank, second by councelor Bardy. Resolved that the correspondence from Pride Niagara be received. All in favor. That's carried. Can I have a mover and seconder for the confirming bylaw? Moved by councelor How. Second by councelor Kstani resolved that Lee begin to introduce bylaw 26-37 and that same be read a first time considered and passed. All in favor? That's carried. Good evening everyone. Meeting is adjourned. Have a good night.