Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the Grimsby Heritage Advisory Committee meeting to order. Um, so this evening we've received regrets from both the vice chair and the chair and so because of this we will need to appoint an interimm chair. So I have a resolution before me here um that we appoint someone as an interimm chair. Um I'll open up to the committee. Does anybody want to chair the meeting tonight? >> I'd like to uh I'd like to nominate Amy to to chair this evening who is uh perfectly seated for that job. Luckily, >> I'll second that nomination. Okay, perfect. So, um, all in favor? It's carried. All right, I'm now pass it over to Amy. Good. Good evening, everyone. I'm going to start this evening with our land acknowledgement. Grimby is situated on treaty land. This land is steeped in the rich history of the first nations such as the hot one hot wander, the han shaane and the anos shave including the missagas of the credit first nation. There are many first nations mati and inuit people from across turtle island that live and work in Niagara today. The regional municipality of Niagara Grimby stands with all indigenous people past and present in promoting the wise stewardship on the lands in which we live. Thank you. move forward to the disclosure of pecuniary pecuniary interest. Uh does anybody have anything that they would like to Okay. Well, then I have a resolution here. It's resolved that on April 14th, 2026, the Grimby Heritage Advisory Committee agenda be approved. Do I have a mover? Tuesday. >> May 12th. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Sorry. May 12th. >> Apologies. I was reading directly. >> I didn't even catch it. >> Just to be clear, chair, that's Bianca's fault, not your fault. >> Resolved May 12th. and seconder. >> We're not throwing you under the bus for that one. >> Okay. So, it is resolved. >> I see all in favor and then carried. >> All in favor? Carried. Uh, next we're going to move on to the approval of the agenda. Did everyone have time? >> So, this is the minutes now. >> So, you're going to be receiving the minutes or approving the minutes. Yeah. >> So, you guys have they've read them >> and then do they have any questions about the minutes? If not, they pass this. >> You're ready to the agenda? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, guys. It's a work in progress here. Has everyone had a chance to review the previous minutes? And do they have any questions? >> Nope. Okay. I have a resolution. It's resolved that the Grimsby Heritage Advisory CR Comm Committee minutes be received as of May 12th, 2026. Uh, do I have a mover and a seconder? All in favor? >> All in favor? Okay. And that is carried. Okay. Next verbal updates >> memorandum. >> Yeah, we have a memorandum from here. >> Okay. Next, we have a memorandum for the municipal municipal heritage register extension notice of motion. Bianca is going to be presenting that. Thank you through you the chair. Um so um at the previous meeting we talked about the um notice of motion that was put forward from the Lincoln Heritage Advisory Committee that was endorsed by their council um and circulated to uh area municipalities. And so, uh, we talked at that meeting about endorsing that, um, resolution or notice of motion. I guess it was resolution that came from Lincoln. Um, but we also wanted to put together something of our own just to talk about all the things that we've been doing uh, within the time given to us by the province. Um so in order to aid the committee's discussion today staff put together um a draft resolution for the committee to consider um and for council to consider endorsing. Um so again just a reminder to everyone um that as a part of bill 23 um there was changes introduced that uh changed how the municipal register worked. Um and um sorry I was just double checking something here but yeah so the changes came uh from the province that directed us to provide protections to our properties on our municipal heritage register um by January 1st of 2025. And then um they granted an extension through bill 200 um that gave us until January 1st, 2027, which is coming up um quite quickly. And um as a result of uh this change um several hundreds of properties within Grimby um would be losing protection. Um so the town has been working towards the protection of some of our most important buildings. Um, and so we wanted to share that with the province, but we've also been working very collaboratively with the property owners, have had extensive consultation through the designation process, but also through the implementation of our grant program, our tax rebate, um, and our guides and toolkits that we've put together for property owners. Um, so since 2023, the town of Grimby has been able to consult over 200 property owners regarding part four and part five designation. uh we started the designation process for 63 buildings and we've completed that process for 49 buildings with 47 of those not proceeding to the Ontario land tribunal. So they were all settled uh with the property owners um through the council process. Uh we also wanted to note that we've been working collaboratively with um property owners and developers and allowing our sites to change and evolve um through meaningful incorporation of the heritage buildings. Um so we highlighted three uh projects in the town that are underway that have um that include five historic sites and have also enabled um three different um rental buildings while preserving uh the historic elements. Um so we wanted to show that this collaborative work is evidence that protected heritage properties are not obstacles and do not inherently restrict development. um and that these valuable assets have the potential to contribute to the betterment of both the project and the future of the community. Um we've developed um proactive ways to um ensure these buildings are protected while allowing and facilitating opportunities for allowing for these buildings to be relevant and have a future uh through the integration of these uh properties. Um, as I mentioned, we also consulted with um about 100 heritage property owners when we put together our tax program and our grant program. And further, we've been able to issue or award 13 heritage grants in this time. And we've been able to give out 26 tax relief rebates. Um while all this work um has been underway, we still um have the int anticipation of about 484 properties falling off the register in January of 2027. Um leaving these buildings with no protections. Um so this is a significant number of the historic properties within the town. Um and so we've kind of drafted um this motion for the committee's consideration. So, it's on the the um screen, but I will also read it out um because it's a little bit small. Can you see if you can zoom in a little just maybe do the as much as you can with all of them up there. I'll read them all though. Okay. So whereas amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act under the More Homes Built Faster Act 2022 introduced timelines requiring municipalities to issue notice of intentions to designate for properties listed on the municipal heritage register as of December 31st, 2022, originally requiring action by January 1st, 2025. And whereas the province subsequently amended the legislation through the Homeowner Protection Act 2024 to extend the deadline to January 1st, 2027 in response to concerns raised by municipalities and heritage stakeholders. And whereas many municipalities have been actively engaging in research, documentation, and consultation to ensure that listed her cultural heritage resources are adequately evaluated to determine whether listed properties warrant designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. And whereas removal of listed properties from the municipal heritage register if the prescribed timelines are not met may place cultural heritage resources at increased risk of irreversible alteration or demolition before municipalities have the opportunity to propy properly evaluate these cultural heritage assets. Um, and whereas municipalities across Ontario are facing significant workloads associated with evaluating listed properties. And whereas since 2023, the town of Grimby has consulted over 200 property owners regarding designation, started the designation process for 63 properties, and completed designation on 49 properties, 47 of which do not go did not go to the Ontario Land Tribunal. And whereas the town of Grimsby values its heritage resources and also has been working with property owners and developers on plans to restore, adapt, and meaningfully incorporate heritage buildings into their upcoming new large-scale rental housing developments. This collaborative work is evidence that protected heritage properties are not obstacles that inherently restrict development, but valuable assets that have the potential to contribute to the betterment of both the site and future community, a future of the community. And whereas since 2023, the town of Grimsby has implemented new heritage property tax grant program, sorry, new heritage property grant program and tax relief incentive program to support the long-term preservation of the town's invaluable heritage resources. Thus far, 13 heritage grants and 26 tax rebates have been awarded. And whereas the Ginsby Heritage Advisory Committee at its meeting on May 12, 2026 recommended that council advocate to the province of Ontario for further extension to the current deadline. Therefore, be it resolved that the council of the town of Ginsby endorses the recommendation of its heritage advisory committee and respectfully requests that the province Ontario of Ontario further amend the Ontario Heritage Act to extend the deadline to January 1st, 2030 for issuing a notice of intention to designate for properties listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as of December 31st, 2022. Be it further resolved that the extension of the deadline to January 1st, 2030 or another reasonable time frame be provide will provide municipalities with adequate time to complete heritage evaluations and make informed designation decisions. Be it further resolved that this resolution be circulated to the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Local Member of Provincial Parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Municipal Heritage Committee Association, and all Ontario municipalities for their information and consideration. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bianca. Uh, does anybody have any questions? Councelor Christi, >> thank you through chair. Um, I think you did a really good job. I think it captures everything that we talked about. I like that you've uh, you know, we talk about the importance of the heritage, but also how how we're working with it. And um, so I think that, you know, it's it's not only meeting the province's goals, but we're also preserving the heritage and stuff. So, I think you did a good job, >> Council DeFlavio. Thank you, Chair throughu. Yeah, I think what we what we really want to say is just stop the removal of the the registry, but we can't say that. So, we're saying can you extend it? Um, if it goes to if 2030, what we should do is put uh like June 1st, 2030 because that's post the next election. So, then the next government could probably uh reconsider it, you know. So, but I don't think that that's going to be popular amongst the people who are making that decision. Uh, but yeah, I I would like to see it extended indefinitely. Obviously, I don't think that I I I always believe that the register was a very important planning tool. Uh, it it was meant to, like we've discussed many times, provide the opportunity for review. It wasn't meant to put to register houses that weren't meant to be registered. It wasn't meant to designate houses that weren't meant to be designated. It was basically saying these are things that we think meet the criteria may meet the criteria for designation, but it requires, as you know, because you've done it, Bianca, the our team has done it that has gone through the designation process. It requires a great deal of work to complete the designation process. So if we need to get to that point, give us the opportunity to do it. That's all that the the register did. So uh yes, yes to all of this. I I would prefer to just say what we want to say and that is stop removing the register, but this is as good as that for now. So thank you for doing that and and welled. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you uh through you to uh staff. I just want to commend staff for for this resolution because it it really says it all and and like uh councelor DeFlavio and councelor Corsani said, it really um it really does fit with the direction we've been going and uh and heritage is a giant part of Grimby and um you see it every day in Grimby. Every one of us sees it and it's something that that if you don't protect it, it'll disappear. and uh we can we can see where we've lost uh buildings and uh cultural heritage sites and uh this is just something that the province needs to know about and I hope every municipality in Ontario sends something like this to the province. Uh so they cuz quite honestly on a lot of levels the provincial government needs to wake up. Bianca, >> thank you for you the chair. Um I was just thinking to um what councelor DeFlavio said about the register. We could add in um that uh therefore be resolved the council of the town of Grimsby endorse the recommendation of its heritage advisory committee and respectfully request that the province further amend the Ontario Heritage Act to maintain the register indefinitely or if more appropriately ex or more appropriate extend the deadline to January 1st for issuing the notice of intention because then we've at least set it. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, I agree with that. Again, Heritage is so incredibly valuable. Um, so thank you for putting that together. Um, with that, is that the only change that we would like to proceed with? Does anyone have any other changes to the resolution? Nope. Okay. Uh, would you guys like us to reread the resolution? >> Okay. Okay. Well, with that, uh, do we have a mover? Okay. >> You do it. >> Okay. And a seconder. All in favor? Perfect. That is carried. And we're going to look to Bianca again for another update under the memorandum for bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act. Bianca, >> thank you uh through the chair. So, I wanted to uh add this to the agenda for the committee's um reference. So, this was brought to council on April 27th, 2026 and um I did receive confirmation today um from our director that this has been sent to the province. Um so, these are our comments on some of the legislative changes that are being proposed as a part of bill 98. Um so, we were able to provide some heritage comments within this report. Um some of the main um impacts that could affect heritage is the potential loss of site plan. Um so right now we uh mitigate a lot of the uh potential impacts through um site plan and the heritage permit. So um we will continue to have our heritage permit regardless of this change. And so on a site that is designated, we still can mitigate impacts through the heritage permit process. Uh we usually implement the heritage permit conditions as a part of like site plan agreements and things like that. um but they are required regardless of being in the uh agreement or not. Um but this would significantly impact adjacent property. So if we had a development happening adjacent to a designated site and we had the loss of site plan, we wouldn't be able to adequately mitigate in the way that we do now unless there is a planning act application. Um and so um you know we use site plan to help mitigate things and it's a very important technical tool to help us do this. Um so we did flag that as some of the concerns it being an adjacent property. Um the standardization mentioned in here of the official plan um that's being proposed. It would potentially affect secondary plans and special character areas uh or areas with special policies. Um but cultural heritage in the way that it is presented as a general uh policy would continue to be within official plans. We just wouldn't be able to have further um area specific policies like we do um have currently in our official plan. Um so the use of secondary plans is something that the province is strongly encouraging um not be a part of um new official plans. And so we are kind of navigating that with using some of the special um policy areas. But if we lose both of those then we would again be using general policies to protect areas that may need more detail. Um so we've just kind of mentioned some of that in here. And then the other piece is um further standardizing what is considered a complete application in like the main studies and then the subsequent studies. So the culture heritage um like um heritage impact assessments. Um they are continued to be a subsequent study. So we can still ask for that. So that was good that that was still in there. Um and then as for like the other studies that we typically see, temporary protection plans, conservation master plans, um some of those more like detailed studies that actually give us more information on how these buildings will be integrated into the developments. Uh we still have our heritage permits where we can require that. Um so these changes keep coming and we will continue to navigate them um while sharing our concerns with the with the changes. So this report kind of speaks to all of those. because I wanted the committee to have that just for their information. Um, but we're continuing to provide the heritage lens within these reports as they um are brought forward. So, happy to answer any questions. Um, yeah, >> thank you, Bianca. Does anyone have any questions regarding that? >> Thank you, chair. Uh so I've been frustrated along the way with the kind of micromanagement that's occurred from you know the removal of site plan approval in the first place from council uh purview was it frustrated me because I mean you know Mayor Jordan has been involved for years. I've been involved for years. There are many t and with all due respect to our planning staff the more eyes you have on any application the better because not every nobody's infallible you know and uh the more people that look at it the more chance there is that somebody might see something that slips through the cracks or you know find a solution that wasn't found you know and I can think of many examples uh there's a couple that can I don't want to get into the specifics but there are many examples over the years where site plan review has led to improvements of the of the site plan. um the removal of this and even further removal of of site plan approval. Uh it it's just the type of um I I don't want to say micromanagement again. Uh involvement in local planning that is unnecessary from my perspective. You know, we've already you've already trusted it to our planners then trusted to our planners that you know like you've already taken it out of our hands. we, you know, they they wanted to make it not political and I I understand some of that. I don't agree with it, but I understand the the philosophy behind it, but this I don't really understand. So, thank you for your explanation. Um I Is there anything else that we can do other than, you know, what you've already done to to voice our concern, I guess, is is the question after all of that I just said. Is there anything else that we could do as a council, you know, to to voice our our concerns about this further uh intrusion into local planning >> uh through the chair? So, we have sent all these comments to them. I guess there's always the option of kind of similar what we just did for the um heritage register like the extension. there's always that opportunity to put forward a resolution um further like confirming concerns and how it applies to Grimby and then what we'd like like propose something there's always that as an option um and if that's something the committee wants to you know pass a resolution to put back that's something we can look into >> through you chair so maybe if you want to we don't have to do it tonight I know it has to go with the comments but if if you were to uh forward something like that to council, I'm sure that we would get council endorsement for it. We're we're already accepting your comments and uh but if if you were to put together a brief resolution for council, I'd definitely move it and I'm sure that uh well, I don't want to speak for council, but I think I'm sure there would be a seconder at at council for that as well. >> Mayor Thank you. Through you uh to staff, it's just the province has wants everything standardized, but with removing site plan, it makes it like a cookie cutter type thing where where developers love it because they have one set of plans and they can build wherever they're building and you just have no um real community anymore. I think I feel that that's losing when you see a building in Vaughn that's the same building as Niagara Falls and you go that building's exactly the same and and you can look down a neighborhood um and it might it could be anywhere in Ontario and and I think that that's something that we're going down a slippery slope of of boringness almost whereas at individual site plans having uh the ability of of members around the table to comment it on it. Like the council deavio says, you have so many different views that that you end up with a better um plan and a better building when you do have those more eyes looking at it. And it's just something that watering it down makes it easy for one end of the spectrum, but you have a lesser product in my opinion. Councelor DeFlavio >> through you chair briefly. I can think of examples of um site plans where it was next to a heritage building and we wanted to make sure that it was uh sympathetic to the heritage of the neighborhood. And it doesn't that doesn't mean exactly the same. In fact, there are lots of examples where it means the the opposite where we we didn't want it to be exactly the same as as what was there. And you use the site plan as an opportunity to look at the building and say this doesn't we don't want this. We want something that's more like that. Uh and and that's another example of where removing the site plan said approval uh removes that ability to to to find that nuance that that is appropriate for the town. similar to what the mayor said that where you have a you know an 1880s building um there there's there are lots of different approaches but we've had lots of examples throughout the the municipality where we have tried to make sure that the heritage of the adjacent building or the you know or the building in the proximity was taken into consideration in that site plan application. this is saying that's not relevant anymore at least if unless I'm misunderstanding it that this is kind of taking that control out of and that even the voice the heritage voice out of it which again is that cookie cutter type policy which even frankly even from a provincial perspective is kind of a 2020 approach to planning um at a time where people were building cookie cutters I I don't think that that's even a reality of planning anymore more in 2026. That's not the kind of construction that's occurring anymore. So, I I don't I think it's an outdated policy even though it's a new policy. It's a policy based on what was happening when a mark when the market was booming. And that's not what what you want now is a good product, one that's reflecting what's happening in municipality, one that is there for the long term. And this doesn't consider that. It says everything should be uniform. And and that's not the reality of planning in 2026. It was it's the the two terms of council ago planning where people were building hundreds and hundreds of condos because people were buying them on spec. That's not what's happening anymore in the market. And I think that this this policy doesn't reflect even the reality of planning anymore in 2026. So anyway, that's enough for my one of my many rants for the evening. I apologize. >> Thank you for the chair. I just wanted to add so we have had change with site plan that it can only be for commercial sites or 10 units or more. Um so for our typical like residential property that's next to a heritage building that we've already lost that. Um and so if there's no planning act application or no heritage permit there's no ability for us to mitigate any of those impacts. So, um, you've probably been seeing more conditions associated with minor variances when it comes to them being next to heritage building, and that's because we have that opportunity through the planning act application to mitigate some of those impacts. And so, we've been seeing like vibration monitoring devices being required on adjacent properties. We've been seeing crack monitoring devices be installed on the heritage buildings. uh we've been having the ability to have final materials be compatible with dist distinguishable from and subordinate to. So you're probably seeing more of that in those minor variance conditions because we no longer have the site plan. So we're trying our best where we can to mitigate that. Um but those heritage impact assessments and things like that. If we don't have a planning act application, we're not able to ask for them. And then once we do ask for them, we're able to implement them through the minor variance. But the idea of asking for one, if there's no planning act application, there's no way for us to integrate them. Um, so this would just further reduce that for larger developments, 10 units or more commercial, those kinds of things. The loss of that and the complexity of some of these sites, that's definitely um concern of how you're going to mitigate impacts to the buildings. >> Uh, thank you, Bianca. Um it's it it's alarming I think when you look at uh mayor you spoke to um you know the cookie cutter and and council DeFlavio about uh the uniqueness and the needs and the market being a different market and I think you know we advocate in our communities for individualism. Um but when you look back at everything that we preserve it's not just the architecture of the buildings it's the people it's the stories it's the family it's the history. uh we talk about the history of the architecture, the influence from different cultures um on on the building and the structure and um I think if we have more and more limitations from that and we just move to the the cookie cutter, we'll get to a point in time where there won't be much preserving and that's a sad reality. >> Councelor DeFlavio. >> Yeah, through you chair. And I think that this term of the heritage committee and the amazing job done by our heritage planners has taught us that heritage is in the details, right? It's it's in those details that that we ask for and that that the heritage assessments find. Uh and by removing those details, you're removing heritage, right? So I it's I'm I'm afraid that we get to a point where none of this matters and that seems to be the line that we're the the path that we're going down. And uh so every you know it's it's that I I hate to use the terms like slippery slope and and you know thin end of the wedge but it always feels that way to me because it every policy that diminishes heritage seems to lead to another policy that diminishes heritage and it's it's it's a snowball effect that we get over over time. So yeah I mean I think making making our opinion clear will be important on this. I don't know that it'll be anybody's going to be listening, but I think it's important to have our voice. You know, I I we've had lots of experience of, you know, speaking to nobody, but but but I think it's important that we still go on the record and and and say what we believe. So, you know, if if staff is comfortable with putting something brief together for for the next uh council meeting, I'd be happy to move it. >> Oh, sorry. I was just going to add through the chair. Um maybe we do similar to what we did tonight where we can take it back and bring a memo. That way we have some time to talk to the team rather than drafting something on the spot yet. >> Councelor Christi, thank you through your chair. Um I agree and I think to your point um you know nobody might be listening but if it's circulated and it's not just one voice it's it's like the register extension it comes from multiple like we we're sort of the starting point of multiple municipalities speaking up and saying I think the voice will be louder if it's if it's united. So um absolutely work on it, bring it back and and we should have it circulated to everybody and encourage them to do the same. Sorry about that. Okay. Uh so no one else any uh further comments or questions. I'll move forward with the resolution. Resolve that bill 98 building homes and improvement transportation infrastructure act be received and that the staff provide a memo with a recommended resolution for council endorsement speaking to the importance of site plan to the heritage planning process. Do I have a mover? Councelor DeFabio and a seconder. All in favor? As carried? Thank you. Uh moving on to the next item on the agenda. Uh we're going to move to Mike uh to present a report HR 26-07 designation report for 91 Main Street East. Right. >> Thank you. Through you, chair. Staff would like to note that all property owners have been informed of the proposed designations of their properties. Staff would also like to thank the Grimby Historical Society for their continued contributions towards the conservation of the town's cultural heritage value as well as the contributions of Wayne Mullins of Legacy Research. Uh, as you mentioned, tonight's property is 91 Main Street East, a rather prominently placed Italian8 farmhouse of the late 19th century on Main Street East, just east of Maple Avenue. Based on the assessment of cultural heritage, value or interest, staff recommend that the property at 91 Main Street East be designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff have concluded that the property has met six of the nine prescribed criteria of the Ontario Regulation 906. The property meets the criteria for design and physical value because 91 Main Street East is an orange brick farmhouse of Italian8 style. Popular in Grimby in the late 19th century, this style was commonly associated in Grimby with the residences of wealthy fruit farmers along the main street corridor. It features a symmetrical facade with a two-story frontest piece and prominent stone coins at its corners capped by a gently sloping truncated hipped roof. These coins along with stonework around the window openings are clear evidence of quality craftsmanship. The property meets the criteria for historical value and associative value because 91 Main Street East is closely associated with numerous historically prominent Grimby families, particularly the Nellis, Walker, and Cole families. Parcled from the fruit farming estate of Beverly Robinson Nellis, the subject dwelling was constructed as a family home for Wellington Walker, a butcher, wagon maker, hotelier, and fruit farmer sometime between 1885 and 1901. Wellington was a descendant of William Walker, one of the early loyalist settlers of the Grimby area. The pro uh the property was later sold to Albert Edward Cole, a prominent floraulturalist who founded and operated uh Koh's Florists and converted the subject dwelling into apartments by 1950. The subject property has the potential to yield information about Beverly and Ellis's subdivision plan number 65 as one of the earliest developments on that plan as well as the Walker and Cole families as well as information about the fruit farming and greenhouse businesses of the town and Main Street East's historic housing developments. The property meets the criteria for contextual value because 91 Main Street East is important in illustrating the development and evolution of the Main Street East corridor. The dwelling contributes to the scale, mass, and form of the dwellings that line the historic corridor. The property at 91 Main Street East is also historically linked to its surroundings. The Nellis Walker farm directly contributed to the prosperous tender fruit farming industry that was influential in Grimby's development during the late 19th and 20th centuries. There is evidence of mature fruit trees on the property until at least 1965. The subject lands were a part of surrounding subdivision lands connected to the early development of subdivisions in Grimby. The Italian8 dwelling built before 1901 functionally served as the farmhouse for the Walker family and visually illustrates the historic use of the streetscape as a farming corridor. In summary, based on the assessment of cultural heritage value or interest and significant findings, staff recommend that the property at 91 Main Street East be designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mike. Does anyone have any comments or questions? With that, I'm going to move to the resolution. It be resolved that report HR2607, heritage designation report 91 Main Street East, dated May 12th, 2026, be received and that 91 Main Street East be designated under part five, four, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and that a notice of intention to designate be issued in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Do I have a mover and a seconder? All in favor? That's carried. Does anybody have any announcements? >> Okay. Uh we're now going to move on to announcements. Um, I know that councelor DeFlavio has an update regarding Grimby Beach. Is there anybody else? >> It's not an update. Bianca has the update. I I asked Bianca to give an update about the impact of the secondary plan removal from the official plan uh on Grimsby Beach as or well it wasn't Grimsby Beach speech specifically, but that's an important part of it. But just uh from a heritage perspective, h what impact that removal has. So uh be uh sorry, I'll let you >> Bianca. >> Thank you for the chair. Um so um yeah, so I'm happy to provide some feedback on that. Um so I first wanted to start by saying how important Grimsu Beach is um to the community. I know we've talked about it many times here on the here at the heritage committee. We know that it's a very culturally significant area and we've um been able to protect a few sites in the last few years um in Grims Beach. So, we definitely recognize the importance of it and um we've also talked about um concerns like with changes from the register and things like that and how that will affect that community. Um, we've talked about how the register was such a great tool down there because it allowed the flexibility that came from that art movement that helped to not only I guess preserve the cottages, but it also created its own cultural um, significance. And so the registered paired with the secondary plan was supposed to be the ideal kind of path forward for this neighborhood. It would facilitate opportunities for change to happen while retaining the cottages. We had put in the urban design and heritage guidelines. Um we had site plan intended to guide and manage change. Um so we had all these um tools in place. And so as the legislation has continued to evolve and change, we kind of have a constantly moving uh target, I guess. Um, so our goal is to preserve this this community and as things continue to change, we continue to navigate with the goal of preserving this community. So, um, we've been navigating it. So, the first loss we had was site plan. Site plan's been taken away from individual properties. Um, but, um, we do have specialized zoning in Grimby Beach. So, because of this, most applications require a minor variance. So we've been using the minor variance to implement the urban design and heritage guidelines because we no longer have site plan to implement um those tools. So um that's something we will continue to do and that's something that we have been doing for quite some time. But we reference the secondary plan policies to make sure that we're able to ask for these things within the minor variance. And so uh following strong suggestion from the province, we wanted to ensure that these policies that are very important into implementing the minor variance conditions were still within the official plan and that's why they've been um implemented into this special policy um like set it's area specific policies. Um, and so the idea is that just because they're under a different name, it doesn't mean that they've lost any strength. Um, so we're still able to integrate these policies. Um, and I think I wanted to note that like all policies within the official plan are treated equally. So just because something's under a different name doesn't mean that it holds more weight. So if like um you know we're requesting a heritage impact assessment in the cultural heritage section which is 4.1 in the new plan and if we're asking for a heritage imp uh impact assessment in the Grimsu Beach um policy set area that a heritage impact assessment is equally as important in both sections. So even though it's not listed in other areas of the town, if we ask for a heritage impact assessment, it's still as strong as specifically saying Grimsy Beach requires one. Um, so we've gone through and made sure that all of the policies we require to implement, you know, these minor variance conditions as an example, but all these important things that we need to mitigate impacts in the beach, our goal is to make sure that they're in there. And so, um, number one, we've put them in there, but number two, uh, the team has been working really hard to test all of these policies. So, we we use examples of like previous applications that use the secondary plan or when we had site plan, like how how that worked. We continue to test these and we do that with all different types of development. We're testing our policies to see if we are able to be just as defensible that these recommendations are being made. Um, so that's what we've been working towards following the strong suggestion from the province. Um, and uh, I also wanted to mention that when the Grimsy or when the um, official plan comes out, we um, like the new draft, there'll be a staff report um, that are is accompanying these revisions and we're going to get a little bit more into what these look like looking at like the existing versus the future. and then we are definitely able to talk about that in more detail. But if there's concerns from the community and things like that, we are happy to hear them. And like our goal is to make sure that we're able to in integrate these. So um we're happy to hear the concerns and uh take it from there. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bianca. Councelor Defavio. >> Thank you, Chair. I think um I think the fear in the community is that the moving it from a secondary plan which has allowed us to um you know for change because we know change is inevitable but for that for us to make sure that the change is gradual um and um and kind of guided by that secondary plan. I think the fear is that it's going to be peacemeal instead and uh I there also there are fears that some of the protections provided by the secondary plan will be removed alto together. So, I think whatever whatever that new policy looks like it and I think our planning staff has has done a great job of letting us know that on June 1st when that uh special council meeting is occurring that they're going to put it side by side and explain how how those things uh are going to occur. But if we can release that earlier, if we can get that information out earlier so people feel more comfortable with it and if they have questions rather than it coming to the special council meeting and it coming out a couple days before as that tends to happen. Uh if we can get that information out to the people of Grimby Beach as soon as possible so they can kind of filter through it and feel more comfortable about it. I think that's an important uh part of it. I think that we all agree, whatever it looks like, that it's an important part of Grimby's cultural heritage. Um, and you know, I would feel more comfortable if we I I don't know what strongly suggested means by the province, you know, like I I I'm of the opinion that we say suggestion noted and we put and we keep the secondary plan. you know, like it's like when there's a no parking sign and you go, "Well, I'm only going to be here for 15 minutes." You know, uh the I I just don't I want to make sure that everything that we have in place that you've used as as a heritage planner to protect Grimby Beach is still there in the new form. So, whatever we need to do to make sure that that's there, let's do it. And I that seems to be what you're telling me that that is going to occur. We need to make sure that everybody feels comfortable with that because there's a lot of fear about what might happen. A lot of uh maybe misunderstanding or maybe poor communication on our part about how this change is going to occur. So, let's get it out there and make sure people are aware of it. That's all. >> Thank you through the chair. Um yeah, so when it comes to the review of planning act applications in Grimsby Beach, heritage staff usually do um the evaluation in the Grimsby Beach area. That's a big part of our review. Um and we're looking at all those documents and all those policies within the official plan. So I've gone through and made sure that every policy that we use to implement is included. Um, and uh, I just wanted to note like from a heritage perspective, like there is still significant concern with the loss of the register. Um, because we don't want to see those cottages start to disappear from the landscape. Um, but the secondary plan can't stop that. So, demolition can't be stopped by the secondary plan. It can be encouraged that they don't be demolished, but at the end of the day, it's not applicable law. So, if a demolition permit comes in, we have no ability to react. Um, so that's something that is of concern in general. And then the loss of sight plan of course changed how we navigate it. We've been successfully able to navigate it through the minor variance conditions. Um, but we we totally understand the concern and we do see the vulnerabilities that have that will happen in January from this change. Um, but we'll continue our goal is to continue to protect those buildings. Um but yep >> through you chair. So would it make sense for us to explore a heritage conservation district again in Grimsby Beach? I mean, I know that we tried to kind of put a group together and it didn't really uh materialize the last time we did it, but with with these concerns that you've expressed and and I love the fact that you said, you know, you you've made me feel a lot more comfortable already by saying we've taken into consideration all of the things that we use in that plan and we're making sure that they're in the new official plan. But do you think that exploring um a heritage conservation district for Grimby Beach would help solve some of the concerns? You know, do you think it's appropriate? Is it too over overwhelming a task? Is it something that the next council should should explore? You know, should it be one of our first priorities or their first priorities if I'm not reelected? like you know like how uh because if if we do think that maybe we should because we're putting those reports together at the end of the at the end of the terms of these committees maybe we should say hey you might want to explore that for the next term of the heritage committee >> through the chair so I know we've discussed conservation district in the past um the nice thing is we do have the secondary plan which has these policies already identified. Um, and so if we did move towards some type of heritage conservation district that focused on demolition protection, I think it would work well. I think the challenge in the past with not doing the secondary plan paired with the district, if we had just done the district, was how do you manage the preservation of an artifact and allow the artistic movement to continue? because we fully recognize that the artistic movement that's happened in the beef is culturally significant. It's part of its value. Um so I think that is something that could be explored. You do a really down watered down conservation district that focuses on retention of the resources from a demolition perspective and then you have your policies in the secondary plan or the site the area specific policies they function um the same. And if you have both of those tools working together that I think that would reduce the vulnerability of the area significantly because the loss of the register like it's it could have a devastating impact if demolition permits start coming in. Right. So I think that's something that we could definitely consider. Um and support from the community would definitely make that process um more streamlined. I think maybe we can put um a resolution forward to explore um that piece and see what that would look like if there's ability cuz right now we could do individual designation down there and work one-on-one with property owners for the attributes and things like that. Um but as for passing a bylaw for multiple properties, I know those are potential opportunities as well. So we could look at like what is the best tool down there. But I think when it came to the at the end of the day the secondary plan paired with the register like it was solid and we had the site plan it was solid down there. And now with this change like it's change it's going to change things for sure. And the register was the perfect tool because it gave the demolition but it didn't require as much um oversight on the alteration. And that's when the secondary plan kicked in for alterations because we had the urban design and heritage guidelines and every site required a site plan. So you can mitigate all that. As I mentioned, we do have restrictive zoning down there. So mo most applications need a minor variance. And so we can still manage the urban design and heritage guidelines through um the minor variance process. So I think paired it would pair well. councelor. >> So, I I know that you have lots to do and I I I don't want to bump a new priority to the top of the of the pile, but if you as a professional or the team as professionals feel that a heritage conservation district, the watered down version that you're talking about, that would allow us to preserve a lot of the things that we're talking about without overly hindering any change to like to a uh to that artistic idea that you mentioned. Uh I would strongly support that. I mean I supported it the last time around when we talked about it as as a more uh stringent policy. So I would definitely support that policy. So even if you want to start the exploration process without getting too deep into the weeds, you have my strong support and and like I said, I'd be happy to move that because I want to I want to make sure that whatever we're losing in the secondary plan, we're replacing with something else. I know it's not going to be apples and apples, but something else that because you mentioned the two together, the secondary plan and the de and the the heritage register worked really well handinand. uh if we can have the official plan policies and a heritage uh conservation district together to kind of do the same thing, I think that would make a lot of people there feel more comfortable and and make us as a council that want to preserve that area feel a lot more comfortable. So tell us what we need to do to to make that happen because we're listening to you. Like we you guys are the pros. We're just, you know, we're we're we're here to listen. So, let's let's make it happen, I guess, is in summary. >> Thank you. Uh, through the chair, I so I think we'll put a resolution that we explore opportunities for demolition protection in Grimsby Beach. But I just wanted to clarify that the things lost from the secondary plan is due to the legislative changes as in like site plan and um the um ability to comment like on design features and stuff. Um, but any policy that's in the secondary plan that we use that we're allowed to use from like a provincial direction standpoint is in there. So, we're confident that everything we need to implement the way we've been doing it um since the loss of site plan, we're confident that it's all in there. But, I just wanted to clarify that piece. But, I think we'll put in here that we explore opportunities for um dem demolition protection in the beach. I I want to thank Bianca and the team because I sent them an email today at like 11:30 asking them to comment and and I said in the email if you don't feel comfortable doing it tonight then I absolutely understand. So, thank you for a prompt reply and for being prepared because if you weren't, it would have been absolutely reasonable for you not to have been. So, thanks as always for being awesome all of you guys. >> Thank you for that. Uh if there's no further questions or comments, we'll move forward with the resolution. Uh it be resolved that the committee recommends that staff explore opportunities for demolition protection in Grimby Beach to pair with the Grimby Beach specific policies. Do I have a mover and a seconder? All in favor? And that is carried. Is there any further announcements for this evening before we adjourn? Okay. Uh okay. Well, thank you everybody for your time and your input tonight. And with that, we'll call it adjournment. I want to thank the chair for uh for stepping up and doing an excellent job tonight despite Bianca's flawed uh speed uh layout for you there. >> Well, thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. Thank you.