Peter Kuntz

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a heritage permit to facilitate a 52-unit townhouse development on an assembly of lands that included a designated heritage property and lands adjacent to a natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the development in principle subject to conditions.

The Tribunal found that the 15-metre buffer to the valleylands must be designated and zoned as Natural Area, but permitted its use as a Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible Space (POPS) for passive recreation.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed development conserved the cultural heritage resources of the site, represented an appropriate level of intensification, and was compatible with the character of the surrounding stable residential neighbourhood.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.