The council meeting tonight >> The meeting will begin in 1 minute. Uh good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Planning and Development Committee meeting of May 6th, 2026. Grimsby is situated on treaty land. This land is steeped in the rich history of the First Nations such as the Hadawendaronk, the Hodenaushounee, and the Anishinaabe, including [snorts] the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. There are many First Nations, Métis, 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 pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest? Seeing none, um can I get a mover and second her to approve the agenda? Moved by Councillor Frake, seconded by Member Phillips. Member Potter. Sorry. Um resolved that the agenda for the May 6th, 2026 Planning Development Committee meeting be approved. All in favor? That's carried. Can I have a mover and seconder to receive the previous minutes? Moved by member Drew. Seconded by Councillor Bradsey. Resolved that the Planning and Development Committee minutes of April 22nd, 2026 be received. All in favor? That's carried. Our first delegation today is Allison Tutor from Bousfields Incorporated. Allison, please come to the podium. Good evening. Good evening, everyone, or good afternoon. I'm not quite sure when we change from evening to afternoon, or the other way around. Hello? Yeah, it's very difficult to hear up here. So, if you could speak closer to your microphones, everybody, and and more loudly, that would be great. Thank you. Is that better? Yes. Great. All right. So, my name is Allison Tutor. I am a senior associate and a registered professional planner with Bousfields Inc. Uh we are the applicant and the planners on behalf of the owner of the site at 13 Mountain and 19 to 23 Elm Street. Um as some of you may recall, I delegated to this committee a few weeks ago with respect to the current official plan amendment and rezoning applications for this site. So, as the applications have been referred back to the committee, I wanted to take a few minutes to address the items that were raised in the motion to defer council's consideration of the application, and to provide an opportunity for me to respond to any additional questions that the committee may have. In this respect, I understand that there have been concerns expressed with respect to the public consultation process for these applications, the position of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, as well as parking and transportation related matters. I want to thank Mayor Jordan and the other members of council for raising these concerns and for providing this opportunity for us to respond. 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. So, with respect to public consultation, as noted in the staff report and the addendum, these applications have been subject to both the statutory minimum requirements for public consultation, as well as additional consultation through non-statutory open houses. While the proposal for the site today differs slightly from the proposal that was presented at the September 2025 public meeting, the changes that have been incorporated were done so specifically to address concerns from members of the public, from town staff, and from the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Specifically, the proposal today is physically smaller than that was that was considered last September at the public meeting, and it incorporates an increased parking rate. Any of the impacts from this proposal will now be lessened compared to that September 2025 plan uh due to this reduction in scale. And I also just wanted to highlight that the current proposal at seven stories is actually substantially in accordance with the previous development that was approved for the majority of this site. So, of the addresses that this application applies to, all but one have already been approved for a seven-story building, and we're just looking to expand those approvals to include the adjacent property. In terms of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, as I mentioned, one of the main drivers for the changes that have been incorporated in the proposal over the past year has been our collaboration with the NEC in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposal onto views of the Niagara Escarpment. These changes included the removal of a full story from the proposal. It was originally eight stories in our application was brought down to seven. Elimination of a rooftop sign that had previously been proposed, as well as the increase of a setback from the Mountain Street frontage. These changes were evaluated in a revised visual impact assessment that was reviewed by the NEC. While they had a small number of follow-up questions, uh they have not objected to to the approval of these current applications. As staff have noted in their addendum, engagement with the NEC will continue through the site plan process for this application. This includes work on appropriate building materials and a whole host of other items. And while balancing these items with consideration for the on-site heritage resources. So, to address those remaining lingering comments that we had from the NEC, um which were in their memo dated April 29th, which is in the package, uh which is just last week, Landart Design, who undertook the visual impact assessment, provided a letter confirming the details that were requested, such as the drawing set used in their assessment, the maximum building height that was modeled, and the intent of the draft zoning bylaw provision, which allows for minor rooftop projections. This letter has been shared with the NEC, and they confirmed earlier today that they have no further comments or concerns with these applications. Finally, with respect to parking and transportation operations, this proposal is seeking a site-specific parking framework that includes one parking space for every market rental unit and 0.7 spaces per unit for the 15 proposed affordable units. Overall, there are 147 resident parking spaces on site for 150 residential units. For the retail units and residential visitors, seven parking spaces are provided on site, and an additional 23 spaces are provided off site through a combination of cash in lieu and existing off site parking arrangements. The cash in lieu of parking element of this proposal is supported by town staff and will help to support improvements to the town's existing parking lots in the downtown. This arrangement is explicitly permitted in the town's draft new official plan in recognition of the challenges of providing significant quantities of parking in new developments. While I recognize that the proposed parking framework represents a reduction in the required parking as compared to the town-wide zoning by-law, it's important to consider this reduction in the broader context of the application. This is a rental residential building. It's located in what I would opine is the most walkable area of Grimsby. If there's anywhere in the town that could support a lifestyle that doesn't depend on daily vehicle usage, this is it. And for those that do require parking, we are confident that the proposed rates will be sufficient to meet the demand of the residents. In terms of transportation impacts, trip generation and intersection operations were assessed by our project transportation consultant, BA Group, and they were then reviewed by town and regional staff, and were also subject to a peer review by RJ Burnside and Associates. In all cases, the transportation impacts of the proposal were deemed to be acceptable. Overall, I just want to end with saying that this proposal provides one of the key pieces to the continued success of downtown Grimsby, which is more people who will live, shop, and support the amenities of the downtown. So, thank you for your time tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions of the committee. Uh thank you for your presentation, Allison. Um questions from the committee? Seeing none, uh up next we have uh Kevin Luitje Huizen. Um Kevin, please come to the podium. Thank you. Um my presentation goes over the 10-minute. uh Can I have a couple extra minutes >> [snorts] >> beyond the 10 minute? Yeah, given given the um um popularity uh for lack of a better word of uh this uh um proposal uh we'll allow you a little bit over uh but try to be uh succinct. >> through it as quickly as possible. Thank you. Appreciate that. Through you, the mayor. My name is Kevin Lute Hayes and I'm the owner of Harmony Jewellers. Over the years I've invested heavily in our downtown in businesses and properties and in people, employees and families whose who livelihoods are tied to the long-term success of Grimsby. But more importantly, I've invested in this town, in its character, in its identity, in its heritage, what makes Grimsby a special place. And that's exactly what's at risk here tonight. I want to be clear. I'm not opposed to development. I support growth growth and intensification when done properly. 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. The The proposal depends on reduced parking, offsite parking, and expanded use of cash in lieu. Yet the town still does not have a completed parking strategy, a defined enforceable cash in lieu framework. I raised this issue from this podium 8 months ago and those tools are still not in place. That is not proper planning. Even within the prop- the proposal itself, the numbers do not line up. Public Works supported 20 spaces for cash in lieu, while the by-law allows for 25. If the analysis supported 20, why are we allowing more? At the same time, the cost per space is not clearly defined, which means we are being asked to rely on a system that is not fully established or consistently applied. Cash in lieu is not a solution, it's a tool, and it only works when it's tied to a real deliverable plan. Without that, we are not solving a problem, we are shifting it into our streets, onto our businesses, and onto our already limited parking supply. I have long advocated for more downtown parking to support economic growth, and I've been consistently told that parking is too expensive, and the taxpayer should not pay for it. Yet here, we're doing exactly that in reverse. Taxpayers are paying, and the private developer benefits. The downtown businesses lose. That's not fair to taxpayers or to the businesses that are left to deal with the consequences. We are being told by the developer that parking has improved, but it is critical to understand how. Parking demand was not solved, it was shifted onto municipal lots and reduced by eliminating the community hub. That community feature was not minor, it was a defining part of the original proposal, sold to the public, and relied on through the OLT process. The community hub wasn't removed because it lacked value, it was removed to make the numbers work. Once again, the community and the taxpayers lose, while the private developer benefits. At the same time, this is not a minor revision. This project now sits on a larger assembled site, spans additional properties, and has significantly greater footprint. The massing and the material difference and even the even in the applicant's own visual impact assessment and comments from the Niagara Escarpment Commission raised concern about the impact on the escarpment and the surrounding views. This is not the same project that was presented to the public or approved by the OLT. What is being presented as a solution in reality is a series of trade-offs, increased reliance on cash in lieu without a clear structure, added pressure on public parking, and the loss of a promised community benefit. The burden is being shifted onto the community and the downtown businesses. We should not be going to the Niagara Escarpment Commission to make a proposal like this fit. We should be working with them to define the rules first so a development respects the escarpment, not pushes up against it. This is not a refinement. This is a material change. This project is materially different and must be treated as a new proposal with proper public input. But there's an even bigger issue moving alongside this development. And that's the official draft plan or the plan, sorry, draft official plan. 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. Downtown Grimsby is defined by its relationship with the Niagara Escarpment. We are just We're not just near it. We are nestled into it. The The Escarpment is not a backdrop. It's a defining feature of Grimsby, and it belongs to everyone, and it needs to be protected. There may have been public consultation on the official plan, but there appear There appears to be a significant disconnect between what the public believed was being discussed and what is actually being permitted. I do not believe most residents understood that this plan could allow 12-story buildings along the base of the Escarpment. And now both this development and this proposal Sorry, this proposal and the official plan are moving forward side by side with significant urgency. I think it's fair for the public to ask why. The town places significant importance on protecting individual heritage buildings, designating them, regulating them, and preserving them. And yet there's no comparable framework framework to protect the broader Escarpment landscape that defines Grimsby. There are no clear policies for how we build at the base of the Escarpment, no defined view protections, no transition framework, and no established interface between development and the landscape. This is a fundamental gap. And once these buildings of this scale are constructed, there's no undo. There's no second review, no correction. This is a permanent decision. There's been a great deal of discussion about the Ontario Land Tri Tribunal. The concerns that if council says no, the developer may go to the OLT and get something worse. But, there's also a real risk in saying yes. Because this application does not exist in isolation, it sits alongside a draft official plan currently on the agenda for next month that would allow heights of up to 12 stories along the base of the escarpment. So, the real question is not what happens if we say no. The real question is what happens if we say yes and then approve the official draft plan next month. Because if both happens, this does not remain a seven-story project. It immediately moves into a planning framework that allows 12 stories or more. And the need to go to the OLT largely disappears because the permissions are already in place. That is the reality of what is in front of you. So, I ask you, Mr. Mayor and the members of council, is that the direction your constituents actually want? Do they want to see 12-story buildings along the base of the escarpment and a long-term and the long-term impact that comes along with that? Because this decision is not just about one application. This is about setting the direction for the future of this town. I've heard this developer describe himself as a city builder and point to places like Collingwood as an example of his vision. But, I think council needs to pause and ask if that's the direction this community actually wants. In my experience, residents are not asking for Grimsby to become a city. They are asking for growth, but growth that respects our scale, our character, and what makes this town unique. If this project is approved with reduced parking, expanded cash in lieu, and unresolved visual impacts, it becomes the model for what follows under a far more permissive official plan. That's how communities lose their identity, not all at once, but incrementally. And once that decision that direction is set, it becomes very difficult to reverse. That is why the timing of these decisions matter. This revised proposal only came to light weeks ago, at least to the public, yet it's being pushed forward quickly. At the same time, the draft official plan, one that would fundamentally change what is permitted on the Wolverton and the surrounding properties, is moving forward just as quickly. And I think it's fair for the public to ask why there's so much urgency to move both of these forward at the same time. I understand there are timelines, but timelines do not justify incomplete decisions. If the proper framework does not yet is not yet in place, then taking more time is not a delay, it's a responsibility. There is a responsible path forward, and it's available right now. The [snorts] committee can act tonight by putting forward a recommendation directing staff to examine and consider implementing an interim control bylaw under Section 38 of the Planning Act. That authority exists for exactly this type of situation, where decisions are being requested before proper framework is in place. In this case, that includes municipal parking strategy, a a clear cash in lieu framework, and clear rules for how we build at the base of the escarpment. Develop This should be developed together with the Niagara Escarpment Commission and within the Niagara Escarpment Plan where protections are clear and far more enforceable. An interim control bylaw does not stop development. It simply pauses it so that when development does proceed, it's guided by the right rules and a full understanding of the long-term impact. It is also important to understand that the Ontario Land Land Tribunal typically gives weight to these municipalities that are actively undertaking this kind of planning work. This is a measured, defensible step that allows council to get it right because ultimately, this is what is at stake. If council approves this development, you will be turning a shared public landscape into a private commodity where the best escarpment views are no longer experienced by the community. They are sold floor by floor from private units. 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. So, what I would ask council to take the pressure off, take the time, and get this right. Please seriously consider directing staff to examine an interim control bylaw under section 38 of the Planning Act so proper framework can be put in place before irreversible decisions are made. Because if If don't, we're not just approving a building, we are changing Grimsby permanently. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. >> [applause] >> Are there any questions from committee? All right, our next delegation is Michelle Seaburn. Michelle, please come to the podium. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to make some comments regarding the proposed Wolverton project. Not as a regional councilor, I'm here as a concerned resident. And Kevin, you're a hard act to follow. The development has undergone several changes since it first was introduced. I understand that the developer has reduced the height of the building and consequently the number of units. However, significant amendment amendments remain, including the official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendments, increased lot coverage, reduced setbacks, and a concerning resident parking ratio, narrower parking spaces, and virtually no parking for visitors or um uh customers at any of the retail outlets. While a number of amendments itself is concerning, parking remains by far my greatest concern. During my time on municipal council as a member of the planning committee, parking was consistently one of the most significant concerns raised by residents, businesses, and developers. It was an issue we took seriously because parking impacts not just the development itself, but the surrounding neighborhood and business community. Less than one parking space per residential unit is troubling. Most family households require two working adults and unless they both work within walking distance of their home or have access to regular transit, many families require more than one vehicle. There is no There is virtually no visitor parking proposed and if retail is included within this development, there appears to be little or no on-site parking available for customers. I understand there is an expectation of underutilized parking spaces in the surrounding area and they may be available during the off hours. However, residents with additional vehicles will inevitably seek parking elsewhere, potentially displacing parking needed by nearby businesses and their customers. That is not fair to local businesses and it's not fair to the surrounding residents who will be left to deal with the consequences of inadequate parking. This is not an ideal situation and it is only gets worse if it becomes the accepted norm. Cash in lieu of parking does not solve the problem. The suggested 25 spaces could still be occupied by residents of this development. I would also like to note that we are expected to lose approximately 25 roadside parking spaces when the new Grimsby Reimagined project is completed next year. To my knowledge, the parking study has not yet been finalized, but I would suggest that it demonstrates that convenient parking is already limited during certain times. I'm not requesting action for this committee. My purpose is simply to emphasize that leadership must be shown to ensure that these concerns are addressed before the development proceeds. Poor planning does not hurt developers, it hurts your community. Please take the time to consider a long-term impact for this proposal carefully. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you, Michelle. Uh any questions from committee? No. Up next we have uh Harley Valentine. Harley, please come up to the podium. Uh thank you, Mayor, uh and members of the uh Planning Development Committee for this opportunity, members of public. Um my name is Harley Valentine. I'm a partner at Castlepoint Numa. I am a a city builder. Uh I was also born and raised in Grimsby and uh have a lot of heart for this town and for this project, and I'm going to do my very best to speak from the heart as I look to uh create a thoughtful response of what we heard tonight. And I want to thank all of the delegates for their contribution. It's a reflection of the passion and the love that we have for downtown Grimsby. I think downtown Grimsby is one of our strongest neighborhoods. Uh I think the soul of this community lives in a large part downtown Grimsby. Um my grandmother had a shop downtown Grimsby, a dress shop, when Kevin's father uh originally ran Harmony Jewellery. So, it's this goes back generations, and I am actually mission driven, mission driven because my grandmother later in life uh suffered dementia, and she had a struggle finding a place to live close to downtown Grimsby and having that access and that walkability um and being able to hold on to that lifestyle. And that's where a lot of my work comes from uh in the town, uh and that's where I'm driven. So, again, I'm going to try to put the heart aside and speak more about the nuts and bolts and the practicality of this project. This is a project that's unlike Grimsby has ever seen before. This is an apartment building. I'm going to make an assumption and say 95 to 95% in the audience today own their homes. Um, that's an incredible gift. That's an opportunity that's built over time. And as we know, we're suffering from cost of living and we're in an affordability crisis. Um, uh, for those who are forward-looking or wish to actually look at, um, let's say, a 12-year late waitlist that currently exists at the Robin Hood Apartments. Uh, the wait lines at the food bank, at the GBF, or the region's feeble attempts to deliver five to six units of affordable housing at the base of King Avenue in Livingston. This project has 15 affordable units. That doesn't require any outside funding. That's going to be driven from our project, from our revenue, um, and through our ambitions to deliver not just an apartment building, but a purpose-built rental. What is a purpose-built rental? Purpose-built rental does not exist. When we think of apartments today in Guelph, we think of Slessor apartments. And Slessor apartments was a purpose-built rental version 50 years ago. Uh, today they're highly amenitized. They tend to have larger suites. They're geared for those looking to downsize, uh, rather looking to free themselves from the, uh, uh, the, um, uh, efforts of maintaining a home as you get older, but also for young families looking to save up and have their start in home ownership. I hope, uh, this audience today and this council has that in consideration as we create in this town uh, what is hopefully more rings on the ladder as far as housing opportunities. Um, we all, let's make an assumption, own homes. Uh, our children, are they able to live and own homes in this community? I think a lot of people would struggle to, um, to say that they have that. But what are other opportunities for them to live here? What about well-appointed apartments or purpose-built rentals? That's what we're delivering. So, um, let's be very clear. This is an apartment building and as an building as the owner of that apartment building we will be vetting tenants and making sure that those tenants are appropriate for our building and also what their vehicle requirements are. So that's another check and balance to be considered as we move forward. Um a lot of change and then we talk about change and I actually I spoke about this many months ago. Changes that I see it as a negative word like things are going to change back. We are on a trajectory that all of us are a little uncomfortable by a trajectory called growth. And guess what that go growth is going to manifest itself into its final apex with the arrival of the GO train. That is happening. And unless we don't want the train to stop here then we should probably forget the interim control bylaw. Let's write a letter to Premier Doug Ford today and the Minister of Transportation say forget the train. It's going to create too much change. And you know what the half a billion dollars that you spent on a high school, on a hospital, 7.9 million dollars for downtown infrastructure. Uh 16.7 million dollars for this community center. Thanks, but you know what? We want to keep the population at 30,000 and that investment's around 60,000 dollars per resident. We think that's appropriate. I don't think that's appropriate. I think we have a lot to offer and I think we need to think about how we roll out a carpet to welcome Sorry. >> [snorts] >> new residents and families to this community because as I look out on this audience and I hear about what the leadership looks like moving forward, we are so much about protectionism and as we said as our great premier prime minister said nostalgia is not a strategy. So let's buckle up and let's work together because what I feel we have to have developed working with staff very closely and the NEC and just to respond to Kevin's remark, we have worked very closely with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. We have iterated the plan several times and today as Allison uh underscored there's no more further outstanding comments. We have the clear and free and if anybody wants to pick up the phone and call the NEC we got thumbs up. I'm very proud of that. I'm proud of this work and what I hope in the new official plan will be commemorated is potentially more developments like this not 12 stories Kevin and I agree with you that is not appropriate. I think seven stories is appropriate as long as it sits off of Main Street in the shadow of Main Street and continues to feed it with new homes and new economic opportunity so that we can continue to grow downtown Grimsby and to Kevin's point and I have a lot of respect for Kevin's heart. >> [clears throat] [snorts] >> He's invested into this town and you know what? It takes investment to maintain its character. If we do not invest it will erode and it will fall apart. There's another of a lot of other shopkeepers that knew my grandmother that are still around and they're holding on by the skin of their teeth. They're not going to make it and that's character we're going to lose but let me tell you if we had 150 units of which 15 would be affordable they could still be there and still be thriving. So that is my mission. That is what drives me. >> [clears throat] >> And that's what we're building for. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation Harley. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none we also have two written delegations from Melanie Tupperwosky and Ian Robertson. Both have been included in the agenda for the public record. Can I have a mover and second her to receive the delegations? Moved by member Drew second by member Potter. Resolved that the delegations from Allison Tutor, Kevin Luitenheizen, Michelle [snorts] Seaburn, Harley Valentine, Melanie Tupperwosky and Ian Robertson be received. All in favor? That's carried. Can I have a mover and seconder to get the staff memo regarding 13 Mountain Street and 19 to 23 Elm Street on the floor for discussion? Moved by Councillor Bradsey. Seconded by Councillor Frake. Kirsten, please go ahead. Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and through you to the committee and and our participants this evening. I just wanted to provide an overview of the memo that was prepared in response to Council's deferral at the April 27th meeting. So, Council had requested further information on the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications for this project and specifically requested clarification on planning process, public feedback, agency comments, parking, and transportation. So, I just wanted to highlight and I think some of the points have already been raised through the delegations this evening. Um that the approval on the property, I guess the history of the planning applications on the property started in 2021. Um so, there were previous official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications for 13 Mountain and 19 to 21 Elm Street. And through these applications, a seven-story mixed-use building was extensively reviewed. Uh those applications had been appealed and in February 2024, that was resolved through the Ontario Land Tribunal via a settlement. Um the OLT decision did approve a seven-story building for 13 Mountain, 19 Elm, and 21 Elm Street. Um and that included site-specific zoning permissions. Um and then the applicant had purchased an additional parcel, which was 23 Elm Street, and so that was added to the proposal and um, in the new zoning by-law amendment and official plan amendment applications before you this evening. Um, and this application would facilitate the expansion of that building um, that was previously approved as a mixed-use building and includes affordable units. Uh, so in terms of the NEC comments, it was raised earlier that um, there was a visual impact assessment that was requested through the application review. That was reviewed by staff in consultation with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. We've had several meetings with the Niagara Escarpment Escarpment Commission and several several iterations of comments. Um, as of today, um, the appendix with all of the comments from the NEC has been updated. They uh, have no further comments. They have indicated that they are supportive of a seven-story development and they will be included um, through our further uh, application process when we do the site plan uh, review. For um, the site-specific parking provisions for the site, um, they have requested site-specific uh, provisions and that's outlined in our staff report that was presented April 22nd. And um, outlined in the draft zoning by-law amendment. Um, this is was reviewed through um, the town in consultation with our uh, peer reviewer, R.J. Burnside, um, to analyze the the parking ratio and parking framework and any um, transportation impacts. So, we have noted within our memo uh, that um, the there is currently a permission through the site-specific zoning that does allow for one space per residential unit and this will be maintained for those market rental unit apartment units. Um, there is a 10% affordable housing uh, components to the development and they uh, original application had asked for zero parking spaces for that affordable unit. Um, however, we through our discussions and um, review of the application, that has been increased to 0.7 parking spaces per unit. As noted earlier, there is 147 parking spaces for the residential units on site. Um, we've also looked at the visitor parking rate that had been um reviewed through additional information that was submitted by the applicant. We did request them to look at five proxy sites for apartment buildings around the community. And through that analysis, it showed a parking rate of 0.12 to 0.16 for accommodating visit visitor parking. Based on that, staff can support the visitor rate of 0.15 that's noted in the draft bylaw. Uh, the cash in lieu of parking is a planning tool that can be used to satisfy all or a portion of the development's parking requirements. So, that was considered in our parking review as well. And then for this development, as noted, there is all the required residential parking on site and the cash in lieu is proposed to accommodate some of the commercial and the visitor parking component. I will note that through the previous Ontario Land Tribunal approval, the site-specific zoning does allow for cash in lieu of up to a maximum of 15 parking spaces. And through extensive discussion between the town and the applicant, um it was determined that we could increase that parking requirement from 50 15 spaces to 20 spaces. Uh, the current parking proposed cash in lieu the rate is proposed at 25,000 per ground level space. And that, based on review and input from our public works staff, represents the cost of construction for a new surface level parking space as well as land cost acquisition. And this will Um, with 20 spaces $500,000 in value to be collected for parking improvements in and around the downtown. Uh, in regards to the parking study that was mentioned earlier, we have gone through several phases of the parking study. We have indicated that over the short term there is sufficient parking capacity to meet the demand and flexibility to accommodate near term growth. Recommendations for enhancements will be coming forward through that parking study and based on the initial review and as outlined in the staff memo, the town can achieve an increase of more than 100 new parking public parking spaces within the existing parking areas around the downtown core. Um, in terms of the transportation considerations, I think Allison highlighted the review and the information that was submitted for the application. This was also extensively reviewed through the previous Ontario Land Tribunal settlement and the previous applications. But, based on the review and the the update for the applications before you, the transportation has been assessed by the town, the region, as well as peer reviewed by our our peer reviewer Burnside and has indicated acceptable levels for the transportation network. Um, there will be a site plan process that comes forward. There is an outline within the report that um, details the areas or the considerations through that site plan process. That is where we will look at additional information on detailed design to further flesh out the process. Um, typically the an applicant goes through the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment process to solidify their land use permissions and then they submit their site plan. So, in conclusion, sorry that was a bit long-winded, but I just going over the highlights as requested by council and we uh, want to ensure that it's I guess clear that staff's recommendation remains the same as presented in report PA2612 that was before council on April 27th. Thank you. Thank you Kiersten. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions. Uh Uh moved by Councillor Bradzy, seconded by Councillor Frick, resolved that staff memorandum regarding 13 Mountain Street and 20 and 19 to 23 Elm Street be received and one that bylaw 26-27 and bylaw 26-28 be forwarded to council for approval. All in favor? And that's carried. Right Katie, up next we have the end of term presentation. Thank you through you chair. So as we've discussed the planning and development committee will be providing a brief end of term report for council which will note the the committee's accomplishments and future opportunities from this term. The report will be compiled by staff using points provided by you and it will be finalized ahead of the last meeting on June 10th to allow for committee review. So Mayor Jordan as chair will present the report during the council meeting on July 13th and other members are welcome to attend um if they in person or virtually if they wish. So far I have received feedback from one member. Member Potter, he's mentioned an accomplishment being the level of professionalism, content and thoroughness from staff that should be commended. The information provided over the term of this committee has significantly improved. Um one future opportunity um, respect to the terms of reference the Grimsby Heritage Committee reporting to planning >> [snorts] >> and development standing committee is misleading in that the committee accepts the minutes of their meeting but little else. Um, in reviewing the heritage terms of reference it seems to act directly to council. It acts independently and directly to council. So, that's one future opportunity with um, governance. Another future opportunity being um, with the recent changes in the ability of planning staff to approve certain areas and limits. He thinks it's important to know um, what these approvals are and that we are briefed on a regular basis for approval consistency. Um, especially if there's a potential need to reduce approval levels in the future. So, it's really just making sure accountability and responsibility are firmly in place. So, this is what I've received so far. Um, please send any further feedback to me via email and I will compile it ahead of the next meeting. Um, and I'm happy to take any questions or further feedback if you have any. Great. Thank you, Katie. Uh, questions from committee? Well, I look forward forward to uh, presenting that at council. The next planning and development committee is scheduled for May 20th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. Good evening, everyone. Uh, meeting is adjourned.