Grimsby Mixed-Use Development Decision Deferred - Planning and Development Committee - May 06, 2026

Grimsby’s Planning and Development Committee deferred consideration of the Official Plan Amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications for 13 Mountain Street and 19-23 Elm Street after a meeting dominated by debate over parking, the Niagara Escarpment Commission review, and whether the town has the policy framework in place to support the project. The proposal would add 150 residential units, including 15 affordable units, in a seven-storey mixed-use building.

Topics Discussed

1. MOUNTAIN/ELM DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

The committee reviewed applications for 13 Mountain Street and 19-23 Elm Street, described as an expansion of a previously approved seven-storey project onto an adjacent property. Allison Tutor of Bousfields, speaking for the applicant, said staff had prepared an addendum memo and told committee, “It is clear that getting this development right is really important for the town, and we want to thank staff for their diligent work over the past week in preparing the provided addendum memo, as well as their work over the past year in processing these applications.”

Tutor said the revised proposal was smaller than an earlier version and included a higher parking rate.

2. NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION REVIEW

The applicant said the design was revised through discussions with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, including reducing the building from eight storeys to seven, removing rooftop signage, and increasing the setback from Mountain Street. Committee members were told an April 29 memo from the NEC said it had “no further comments or concerns with these applications” after receiving additional material details.

That review was a central part of the discussion because of the site’s relationship to the escarpment and broader concerns about how future development could affect views and the character of downtown.

3. PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION

Parking was one of the main issues raised by both staff and delegates. The proposal includes 147 on-site residential parking spaces for 150 units, seven on-site spaces for retail and visitors, and up to 20 additional spaces to be addressed through cash-in-lieu at $25,000 per space, for a total of $500,000 for downtown parking improvements.

Staff said short-term parking capacity exists and that planned improvements could create more than 100 new public spaces downtown. Delegates challenged that approach. Kevin Luitje Huizen told committee, “What I question is whether the proper foundation is in place for this decision. When you look closely at this proposal, it is clear that we’re being asked to approve something that relies on policies and systems that we do not yet exist.” He said the proposal depends on reduced parking, off-site parking and expanded use of cash-in-lieu even though “the town still does not have a completed parking strategy” or “a defined enforceable cash in lieu framework.”

Staff also discussed visitor parking analysis. Kiersten told committee that staff had asked the applicant to review five proxy apartment sites in the community and said that work showed “a parking rate of 0.12 to 0.16 for accommodating visitor parking.” Based on that review, staff supported “the visitor rate of 0.15 that’s noted in the draft bylaw.”

4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DOWNTOWN INTENSIFICATION

The development includes 15 affordable units, equal to 10 per cent of the 150-unit project. Supporters argued the building would add rental housing and bring more residents into the downtown.

A speaker for the applicant said, “Purpose-built rental does not exist,” and argued the project would create “more rungs on the ladder as far as housing opportunities.” Harley Valentine said the project was intended to deliver housing while preserving community character where possible, adding that “if we had 150 units of which 15 would be affordable they could still be there and still be thriving.”

Another speaker argued the site was appropriate for reduced car dependence, saying, “If there’s anywhere in the town that could support a lifestyle that doesn’t depend on daily vehicle usage, this is it.”

5. PUBLIC DELEGATIONS ON SCALE, VIEWS AND PROCESS

Delegates also raised concerns about the scale of the project, the assembled site, and the planning framework surrounding downtown and escarpment-area development. One speaker warned that the issue extended beyond a single application, saying, “This is not just another development application. This is a decision about Grimsby’s future, about our heritage, about what we’re willing to give away.”

Another delegate said the draft official plan could permanently alter the town’s identity: “The community should be deeply concerned the direction of this plan could set and how it permanently could change Grimsby’s identity. If approved as drafted, our escarpment could disappear behind towers, fundamentally changing how this town is experienced for generations to come.”

Michelle urged the committee to slow the process, saying, “Poor planning does not hurt developers, it hurts your community. Please take the time to consider a long-term impact for this proposal carefully.”

During committee discussion, Member Potter said that in reviewing the heritage terms of reference, “it acts independently and directly to council.”

Motions

• Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Applications for 13 Mountain Street and 19-23 Elm Street — Deferred
• Planning and Development Committee End-of-Term Report process — Committee discussed preparation of a report to be presented to council on July 13, 2026, with a draft to be finalized by the June 10 committee meeting

Attendees

• Member Potter

The provided notes do not include a full attendance list of councillors present.