Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 17, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL170462
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1463291 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Development Inc.)
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by Town of Oakville
Existing Designation: Low Density Residential with Special Policy Area, Natural Area
Proposed Designated: Medium Density Residential, Private Open Space.
Purpose: To permit the development of 81 townhouse units
Property Address/Description: 1020, 1024, 1028, 1032 and 1042 Sixth Line
Municipality: Town of Oakville
Approval Authority File No.: Z.1516.02
OMB Case No.: PL170462
OMB File No.: PL170462
OMB Case Name: 1463291 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Development Inc.) v. Oakville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1463291 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Development Inc.)
Subject: Application amend Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 - Refusal of Application by Town of Oakville
Existing Zoning: RL1-0, N
Proposed Zoning: RM1, RM2, O2
Purpose: To permit the development of 81 townhouse units
Property Address/Description: 1020, 1024, 1028, 1032 and 1042 Sixth Line
Municipality: Town of Oakville
Municipality File No.: Z.1516.02
OMB Case No.: PL170462
OMB File No.: PL170463
Heard: March 15, 2021, via video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
1463291 Ontario Inc (Dunpar Development Inc)
Russell Cheeseman
Town of Oakville
Jennifer Huctwith
DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1Pursuant to a decision of this Panel in August 2019, the Tribunal considered the appeals for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning by-law brought by the Appellant, Dunpar Development Inc, and made a number of determinations with respect to the failures of the concept plan which provided the basis of the draft Official Plan and draft zoning by-law amendments that were put before the Tribunal for consideration. The decision did however acknowledge the merit in allowing intensification of the site and rather than dismissing the appeal, allowed the Applicant the opportunity to work with the Town “to revise the development concept to provide for a better fit with the principles derived from the study” conducted by City staff at the direction of Council after their initial refusal, which had been brought into evidence during the first hearing.
2The Tribunal, in paragraph 16 of the August 2019 decision made the following finding:
[16]…The Tribunal is satisfied that the site can be redeveloped to accommodate a medium density redevelopment concept on the basis of the conclusions of the Town [study] set out in paragraph 15 of this decision.
3Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 contain extracts from the study, and the following conclusions:
12In response to Council’s direction, and subsequent to the appeal of Council’s refusal, a total of three meetings were held which ultimately identified opportunities and constraints as translated into a bubble diagram which established principles for any redevelopment concept to respect.
13Specifically, the opportunities and constraints include:
Protection of the top of bank and associated buffer area and the Sixteen Mile Creek Valley;
Incorporation of a buffer strip along Sixth Line to buffer or transition between the development on the east side of Sixth Line;
Protection of the treed allee leading to 1042 Sixth Line with increased building setbacks;
Appropriate interface with Sunnycrest Lane, no access being supported;
Protection of the existing Ginko tree in proximity to the