Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 23, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001031

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 1463292 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request

Description: To permit the development of 57 new dwelling units

Reference Number: OPA.1516.03

Property Address: 1020, 1024, 1028, 1032 and 1042 Sixth Line

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001031

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001031

OLT Case Name: 1463292 Ontario Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 1463292 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Reference Number: Z.1516.03

Property Address: 1020, 1024, 1028, 1032 and 1042 Sixth Line

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001032

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001031

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Applicant/Appellant: Taylor Rogers

Subject: Heritage Permit Application – Appeal of Refusal

Description: Heritage Permit Application for alteration and removal of cultural heritage

Reference Number: Hp039/23-42.20S

Property Address: 1042 Sixth Line

Municipality: Town of Oakville

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000240

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001031

OLT Case Name: Rogers v. Oakville (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Applicant/Appellant: Taylor Rogers

Subject: Refusal/conditions of an application to alter a heritage designated property

Description: Heritage Permit Application for alteration and removal of cultural heritage

Reference Number: Hp039/23-42.20S

Property Address: 1042 Sixth Line

Municipality: Town of Oakville

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000241

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001031

Heard: January 13 to January 22, 2025 by video hearing; October 20 to 31, 2025 by video hearing; December 16, 2025 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1463292 Ontario Inc. and Taylor Rogers (“Appellant”)

L. Johnston G. Mutlu M. Nemanic

Town of Oakville (“Town”)

A. Biggart J. Huctwith

Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”)

B. Malone K. Yerxa

DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Appellant proposed a townhome development on an assembly of lands known municipally as 1020, 1024, 1028, 1032, and 1042 Sixth Line, in the Town. To facilitate this development, an official plan and zoning by-law amendment of the Liveable Oakville Plan and Zoning By-law No. 2014-10, respectively, were required. As the property at 1042 Sixth Line is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“Heritage Act”), an additional application was submitted to the Town to permit the alteration, demolition, or removal of heritage attributes to enable the proposed development. All three applications were refused by the Town. The Appellant then filed appeals of each application to the Tribunal; the three appeals were consolidated, and this is the Tribunal’s decision on those appeals.

2Appeals filed pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) require the Tribunal to have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must also be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and conform with the applicable regional and municipal official plans. The Appellant filed the appeal with respect to the Heritage Act application under two subsections of that Act; with respect to the appeals brought pursuant to s. 34(1), the Appellant must receive consent from the Town in writing with respect to the demolition or removal of any heritage attribute set out in By-law No. 2020-047 (“Heritage By-law”). Subsection 33(1) of the Heritage Act states that the Appellant cannot alter the property if the “alteration is likely to affect the property’s heritage attributes”.

3This proposed infill development has an extensive history with the Tribunal and its predecessors. The redevelopment of the lands has been the subject of two earlier hearings before the former Ontario Municipal Board and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”). In October 2016, an initial official plan amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application (“Initial Application”), to permit the development of 81 townhouse units with the retention of the existing dwellings at 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line, was filed. In March 2017, the Initial Application was refused by Town staff and Town Council. Following this refusal, the Initial Applications were appealed. The hearing before the LPAT was held in November 2018. In advance of that hearing, a revised proposal was prepared by the Appellant, and the number of townhouse units was reduced to 67 units. The existing dwellings located at 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line continued to be retained and incorporated into the development proposal.

4In August 2019, the Tribunal released an interim decision on the appeal (“2019 Interim Decision”). The Vice-Chair noted that, while the proposed plan attempted to maximize the underutilized site, it did not optimize the assets of the site, namely the valleyland setting and the existing mature trees, which were worthy of protection. The Vice-Chair acknowledged the merits of redesignating the site to permit a medium density infill townhome development but found that the proposed development concept was “overly ambitious”, noting several areas that to be addressed, including the minimal setbacks, limited private amenity space, and building face relationships. Rather than dismissing the appeals, the Vice-Chair provided the Parties an opportunity to work together “to revise the development concept” to provide a better fit for the site.

5The Parties were unable to resolve their differences and the Tribunal reconvened for a five-day hearing in March 2021. In advance of that hearing, the Appellant prepared a further revised proposal. The proposal, as presented to the Tribunal in 2021, sought the introduction of 61 townhomes, two semi-detached units, and the retention of the existing dwelling at 1042 Sixth Line. The Appellant’s revised concept still exceeded the medium density range of 30-50 units per site hectare (“upsh”), as set out in the Town’s Official Plan. The Town characterized the Appellant’s resubmission as consistent with its approach to maximize the yield of the site as opposed to “demonstrating meaningful consideration of the concerns and shortcomings identified in the previous decision”. The Vice-Chair dismissed the appeal.

6In May 2023, the Appellant submitted a new development concept consisting of 55 townhouse units, a semi-detached unit (two dwellings) organized around eight development blocks, and retaining the existing dwelling at 1024 Sixth Line. The Town refused these applications in September 2023. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal. Following this appeal, the Appellant has submitted further revised conceptual site plans dated September 15, 2024, December 12, 2024, and October 7, 2025. The October 2025 conceptual site plan (“October 2025 Site Plan”) envisions a development of 52 townhouse units, located in six blocks, with the house at 1024 Sixth Line removed, and utilizes some, but not all, of the land at 1042 Sixth Line. The “unused portion” of 1042 Sixth Line has been labelled “future development lands” on various visual aids used during the hearing event and has no bearing on the Tribunal’s decision in this matter. Therefore, references in this Decision to the “Subject Lands” is a reference to 1020, 1024, 1028, 1032, and part of the lands at 1042 Sixth Line.

7This was a lengthy hearing, with the oral evidence of the 18 experts called by the Parties bifurcated owing to a motion to dismiss the appeal brought by the Town part way through the hearing. The motion proceeded in writing and was dismissed by the Tribunal. Oral evidence was heard from January 13-22, 2025, and October 20-31, 2025, with a site visit conducted by the Tribunal Member on November 13, 2025, and written closing submissions submitted on December 16, 2025. The Appellant requests that the Tribunal approve the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), amendment to Zoning By-law 2014-10 (“ZBLA”), and Heritage Act application, which are necessary to bring the October 2025 Site Plan to fruition. The Town asks the Tribunal to dismiss the appeals as it represents an over-development of the Subject Lands that does not achieve good planning. The Region made a brief appearance on January 13 2025 to confirm that Bill 23 had removed its planning authority with respect to the appeals and that the remaining issues of the Region, relating to waste management, could be resolved at the site plan stage.

DECISION

8In opening statements, counsel for the Town, Andrew Biggart, quoted Yogi Berra, stating that this Appeal was “déjà vu all over again”. The Tribunal appreciates the sentiment and the frustration of both Parties that a resolution of this matter has eluded them. It is unfortunate that, despite the evolution of a conceptual site plan over a span of almost ten years and guidance from a Vice-Chair, the Parties have been unable to achieve a consensus on what can be built on site. For the reasons that follow, the appeals are allowed, in part, with the expectation that the Parties will now cooperate to bring redevelopment of the Subject Lands to fruition.

SUBJECT LANDS – CONTEXT

9The Subject Lands have a combined area of approximately 3.35 hectares (“ha”) with frontage of 103 metres (“m”) along Sixth Line, a minor arterial road with a 20 m right of way. The site is located at the edge of an established stable neighbourhood, with nearby residences on the east side of Sixth Line being predominately low-rise in character and situated on large lots. There are existing sidewalks along Sixth Line, and an Oakville Transit stop is within 300 m of the site, a nearby pedestrian connection under the nearby Queen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”) provides access to the Oakville Go Station. The Subject Lands are situated in proximity to various amenities, including several greenspaces and retail areas.

10The site is bounded by the QEW, Sixteen Mile Creek, and residential properties. At present, the Subject Lands are designated as Special Policy Area Residential Low Density (RL1-0), with 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line partially designated as Natural Area by the Livable Oakville Plan (“LOP”). The lands are split zoned as Residential Low and Natural Area under the Town Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 (“ZBL”), which is the comprehensive zoning by-law applying to all properties in the Town that are south of Dundas Street and north of Highway 407. The site is within a Special Policy Area (“SPA”), as set out in s. 26.2.1 of the LOP. This designation is intended to protect the character of the area and limits density to 10 upsh.

11The topography of the Subject Lands is relatively flat at the tableland, with a valley slope, the north valley bank of Sixteen Mile Creek, at the southern limit of the properties (1024 and 1042 Sixth Line) which extends into the valley of the Sixteen Mile Creek. The slope has an overall height of 20 to 24 m measured from the bottom of slope to the top of slope. The Sixteen Mile Creek valley corridor is associated with components of the municipal natural heritage system (“NHS”), being significant woodlands, significant valley lands, and fish habitat.

The Five Residential Properties

12The five residential properties that form the Subject Lands can be described as follows:

• 1042 Sixth Line has frontage on Sixth Line and flanks on Sunnycrest Lane. The property contains a two-and-a-half-storey dwelling constructed in the Arts and Crafts movement architectural style, which lies within the buffer, landscape features, and a formal entrance drive. The property backs onto the Sixteen Mile Creek;
• 1032 Sixth Line has frontage on Sixth Line, with vehicular access provided from a shared private laneway. The property formerly contained a single detached dwelling, which has now been demolished;
• 1028 Sixth Line is located to the rear of 1032 Sixth Line, with access provided by the shared private laneway. The property formerly contained single detached dwelling, which has now been demolished;
• 1020 Sixth Line has frontage on Sixth Line, adjacent to the Sixteen Mile Creek Heritage Trail. The property contains a single detached dwelling; and
• 1024 Sixth Line is located to the rear of 1020 Sixth Line, with access provided by the shared private laneway. The property contains a single detached dwelling. Part of the property extends into the 15 m buffer.

13The property at 1042 Sixth Line was designated under Part IV of the Heritage Act in the Heritage By-law by the Town in May 2020. It has been described as a picturesque cultural heritage landscape reflective of the Arts and Crafts movement and includes a historic residence, natural heritage features, views, and constructed landscape features. The remaining four properties, which make up the Subject Lands, are not listed on the Town’s Heritage Register and they are neither they designated under Part IV of the Heritage Act, nor considered to be a cultural heritage landscape. In addition, the five properties are neither designated under Part V of the Heritage Act as a heritage conservation district, nor are the surrounding lands designated under Part V. The Subject Lands are adjacent to the properties of 1058 and 1074 Sixth Line, which are “listed” (non-designated) on the Town’s Heritage Register. There are no impacts to either 1058 or 1074 Sixth Line as they are located more than 50 m from the proposed development and there are no changes proposed for the portion of the Subject Lands that abuts these adjacent lands.

OCTOBER 2025 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

14The October 2025 Site Plan proposes a medium density residential development consisting of 52, three-storey townhouse-style dwelling units comprised of a mixture of street orientated and rear land townhouse forms arranged across six development blocks (A to F), with egress and ingress from Sixth Line. The existing houses at 1020 and 1024 Sixth Line are proposed to be removed. The density calculation, according to the Appellant, is 43.7 upsh. This iteration of the proposed development includes 13 visitor spaces, which meets the ZBL standard required for 52 units of 0.25 visitor spaces per unit. The tenure of the townhomes, whether standard, common element, or purpose rental, is yet to be determined. As such, the Appellant provided two versions of the draft ZBLA, which it is asking to be approved to cover whichever ownership model the Appellant decides upon.

15The changes to the lands that affect the existing heritage attributes are:

• The development of one block of townhouses (Block F) on a portion of the lands identified as the arboretum, resulting in the removal one tree – a Red Oak (Tree ID No. 1180);
• Alterations to the formal circle in front of the house at the end of the entrance drive to provide a new internal road, resulting in the removal of four Norway Spruce that form the southern leg of the “Y”; and
• Alteration of the elements that frame the view of the heritage house and from the entrance drive.

16No re-grading of the tree-lined entrance drive, the grounds surrounding the heritage house, or the arboretum is proposed. Servicing infrastructure is planned to avoid these areas and low impact development strategies are being employed to maintain existing landscape and drainage patterns. There are no changes proposed to the heritage house at 1042 Sixth Line, no changes to the rubblestone gateposts and walls, and no changes to the terrace or lands to the rear of the house. The tree-lined single lane driveway at 1042 Sixth Line that leads to the heritage residence will remain and will function as a pedestrian access to the heritage house and Subject Lands; however, vehicles would use the two-way access provided by the new development. Another change from the earlier development concepts is that the townhouse blocks adjacent to the tree-lined entrance driveway have a greater setback than previously proposed.

17The proposal would provide three Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible Spaces (“POPS”), which would be accessible to the public but remain privately owned: Area A in the tree-lined driveway leading to the residence at 1042 Sixth Line, and Areas B and C would be located in the buffer. Collectively the POPS would cover approximately 12.5% of the site, as well as a network of pedestrian pathways and sidewalks, landscaped open spaces, and public realm enhancements. Of the existing 224 trees on site, 145 individual trees and eight tree groupings will be retained. 81 individual trees and eight tree groupings would be removed. Of the 88 heritage trees located on the Subject Lands, 85 of the 88 would be retained.

EXHIBITS

18There were 62 exhibits marked during the hearing. For ease of reference, the hearing exhibits list has been attached to this Decision as Schedule A.

EXPERTS

19The following experts were called by the Appellant at the hearing event:

1. Eldon Theodore Urban Design;

2. Erik Klavins Landscape Architecture;

3. Peter Kuntz Arboriculture;

4. Dan Currie Heritage Planning;

5. Richard Pernicky Transportation Engineer;

6. Kin Li Geotechnical Engineer;

7. Julie Scott Ecologist; and

8. Jim Levac Land Use Planning.

20The following experts were called by the Town at the hearing event:

1. Catherine Jay Urban Design;

2. Christienne Uchiyama Heritage Planning;

3. Tony Molnar Arborist;

4. Syed Rizvi Transportation Engineer;

5. Billy Singh Geotechnical Engineer;

6. Elisa Bernier Environmental Planner;

7. Matthew Howatt Conservation Halton (“CH”) (summonsed by the Town) and

8. Robert Thun Land Use Planning.

ISSUES

21The Appellant asks that the OPA be granted to re-designate the Subject Lands from Low Density Residential and Natural Area to Medium Density Residential, to modify the limits of the Natural Area designation, and to permit an exemption from the SPA. Counsel for the Town noted in his opening statement that the Town had “no objection to medium density residential on the site” and that it should be developed as such. The Town’s objections focused primarily on the proposed developments failure to protect natural heritage resources within the site, failure to conserve the cultural heritage resources within the site, and that the proposed level of intensification did not fit with the neighbourhood character.

22The Town raised 34 issues and the Tribunal heard from 16 witnesses over the course of the hearing. The Parties were able to resolve their differences with respect to stormwater management, and no evidence was heard on that point. The issue relating to the Greenbelt Plan was dropped by the Parties before opening submissions. During the hearing’s adjournment period, the Appellant filed the October 2025 Site Plan, and in this iteration the dwelling at 1024 Sixth Line is to be removed. Consequently issues 26 and 27, which were based on the retainment of that dwelling, became inconsequential. The Tribunal finds that there was no disagreement between the Transportation Engineers that the proposed development would have minimal traffic impacts, leaving the only point of contention as to whether there would be sufficient turnaround areas for two of the units, visitor parking spaces, and dimensions of same. The Tribunal accepts the submission of the Appellant that technical concerns regarding parking space widths and turnarounds should be resolved through either approval conditions or the site plan process. The issue with respect to sufficient visitor parking was resolved with the October 2025 Site Plan.

23In basic terms, the Tribunal must determine and answer what can be built on the Subject Lands, where can it be built, and why it can be built there. Rather than produce a lengthy list of commentary, analysis, and findings on each individual issue, the Tribunal has taken a more thematic approach, placing more emphasis on areas of disagreement between the Parties rather than on issues more suited to the site plan phase. The Tribunal considers the following six issues as to whether 52 units on the Subject Lands represents good planning that is in the public interest.

1. Should the buffers to the natural areas be designated and zoned Medium Residential Density?
2. Should the buffers to the natural areas be utilized as a POPS?
3. Does the proposed redevelopment conserve the cultural heritage resources within the site?
4. Does the proposed redevelopment reflect a level of intensification that respects LOP policies?
5. Does the proposed redevelopment address issues with respect to fit with the surrounding neighbourhood?
6. Do the OPA, ZBLA, and Heritage Act appeals meet legislative requirements?

Participant Statements

24Participant Statements from five individuals were received during the Case Management Conference stage of this proceeding. These have been reviewed and considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision on these appeals. The Participant Statements raised concerns that the development had the potential to destroy the character of the neighbourhood, and that people in the community would not object to a low density development, but found the townhome units to be “packed into an inappropriate location”. Traffic concerns were raised, as was the Appellant’s “assumed use of Sunnycrest Lane, which is a private road, for residents to access the development”.

Issue 1: Should the buffers to the natural areas be designated and zoned Medium Residential Density?

Position of the Parties

25There was no dispute with respect to the types of natural heritage features and functions within the Subject Lands, which include significant woodlands, significant valleylands, and environmentally sensitive areas. There was also no dispute with respect to the location of the long-term stable top of slope (“LTSS”) or the limits of the significant woodlands. There was also no disagreement among the experts with respect to 15 m being the appropriate buffer width for the valleylands and 10 m buffer for significant woodland (collectively the “Buffer”). The primary dispute between the Parties relates to the appropriate designation and zoning to be applied to the Buffer and a small portion of the woodlands (located behind Unit 51), and the proposed uses within the Buffer. The Appellant seeks to apply a Medium Density Residential designation and zone to these areas, and proposes to use the Buffer as a POPS, providing amenity space for the 52 units, and would also be accessible to the public. The Town’s position is that these areas should be designated and zoned Natural Area and no POPS should be permitted.

26Sixteen Mile Creek is recognized in the LOP as a major valley, and valleylands includes all lands within a defined setback from the limit of the valleyland and all lands within the valley from the stable top of bank to stable top of bank. Geotechnical studies in this appeals established the LTSS for the valley that bisects 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line. Measured from the LTSS, the setback or ecological buffer, is measured inward from these staked points. The delineation of the LTSS was agreed upon by CH and the Parties, as was the 6 m wide erosion access allowance, that is included within, as opposed to in addition to the 15 m buffer. At present, there is no designated or zoned buffer for either 1024 or 1042 Sixth Line. While there was no disagreement between the Parties that this redevelopment was an opportunity to properly delineate and designate an ecological buffer, the Parties disagreed over the designation and zoning of the Buffer and potential usage of this setback. The Appellant’s position is that the Buffer should be designated as Medium Density Residential and rezoned as Medium Residential (RM1). This was strongly opposed by the Town, who requested that the Tribunal designate and rezone the Buffer as Natural Area.

27The evidence of Jim Levac was that the proposed development would adequately protect the adjacent natural area and its ecological functions. Levac supported the change in land use from Low Density to Medium Density Residential, noting that the existing conditions had existed without issue for decades. During cross-examination, Levac agreed that changing the land use zoning of the Subject Lands met the LOP definition of development as it was a change in land use. Although, the Tribunal is aware that it is also true that changing the designation from its current Low Residential to either Medium Residential Density or Natural Area, by that logic, also qualifies as development. Levac was somewhat evasive when asked if medium density zoning right up to the edge of the slope would be good land use planning. Levac pointed out that the Buffer was currently designated and zoned as Low Density except for a small strip for some time and felt that medium density zoning “would be appropriate planning if it was in place”. Levac also suggested that provisions could be included in the ZBLA to specifically exclude any future development of the Buffer.

28Matthew Howatt, from CH, confirmed that 15 m was the appropriate size for the setback from the LTSS for Sixteen Mile Creek, and opined that, unless there was substantial development in the area, CH would be “fairly satisfied that we are not increasing the risk from a hazard perspective”. It was Howatt’s opinion that the redevelopment of the Subject Lands was an opportunity to properly designate lands based on the stable-top of slope line and the site-specific technical information that has been provided in the expert reports. Howatt’s testimony was that, at the very least, the 6 m erosion hazard allowance should be designated as Natural Area, with a strong preference that the entirety of the valleylands buffer allowance of 15 m be designated as Natural Area.

29Julie Scott, co-author of the Appellant’s updated Environmental Impact Study (“2024 EIS”) for the Subject Lands provided evidence on the ecology of the site. It was their evidence that the valleylands would not be “directly disturbed” as a result of the proposed development. With respect to the Buffer, Scott’s testimony was that a buffer was “at its core a planning designation” and not an ecological feature. Scott’s position on cross-examination was that the Buffer did not form part of the NHS, rather it is a setback between adjacent uses. Scott took the Tribunal through Section 4 of the 2024 EIS, which set out the impact assessment and mitigation measures. Scott’s evidence was that there would be no negative impacts to vegetation and various species, provided mitigation measures were implemented.

30Elisa Bernier was qualified by the Tribunal as an environmental planner dealing with natural heritage and ecological matters. Bernier took the Tribunal to several land-use policy documents in support of her opinion that the Buffer was part of the NHS, and that it should be zoned Natural Area. Bernier’s evidence was that the proposed redevelopment was an opportunity to designate the Buffer as Natural Area to properly align with the LOP, and that the Buffer could not, and should not, be treated differently or distinct from the other natural features of the Subject Lands. It was Bernier’s opinion that it was necessary for the natural features and their required buffers to be included in the Natural Area designation in order to meet the Town’s guiding principles listed at s. 2.2.3 to “preserve, enhance and protect the Town’s environmental resources, natural features and areas, natural heritage systems”, and the objectives of the Natural Heritage System policies in s. 3.1 of the LOP. The Town did not provide the Tribunal with its own environmental impact assessment and Bernier’s evidence did not challenge the findings of the 2024 EIS in a meaningful manner.

31Billy Singh, the geotechnical engineer for the Town, testified that if medium density residential zoning starts from the LTSS, that it would be “eating up into the 6 m erosion access allowance”. Singh explained to the Tribunal that the erosion allowance is there in case of emergency or related slope work. Theoretically, if medium density is permitted in this area, it would allow for construction right to the edge of the slope. With respect to any structure being built within the Buffer, such as the gazebo shown in the conceptual plans, to Singh that would be an obstruction and any structure within the Buffer could impede access to the slope. Singh acknowledged on cross-examination that the townhouse-style blocks in the October 2025 Site Plan are to be built outside of the Buffer and that the only building or structure within the 15 m, other than the heritage house, is the proposed gazebo that is included in the POPS design.

Tribunal Analysis and Finding

32Section 16.1.9(a) of the LOP states that valleylands “include lands within a defined setback from the limit of the valleyland”. The Tribunal finds that the LOP has made clear that the lands within a defined setback of 15 m are part of the valleyland. As such, the 15 m buffer from the LTSS is part of the valleyland of Sixteen Mile Creek. The October 2025 Site Plan does not propose any residential development within the Buffer, and in fact, the proposal will remove the dwelling at 1024 Sixth Line that is partially constructed within the Buffer. Although Levac noted that the Buffer has been used as backyard amenity space for 1024 Sixth Line for “decades”, the Tribunal is not convinced that this is a sufficient reason to designate that area as Medium Residential Density and prefers a more policy-based approach to this issue.

33Section 2(a) of the Act states that a municipality should have regard to the “protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features, and functions”. The PPS also requires protection of such areas, including s. 4.1.2 of the PPS, which directs that that the long-term ecological function of natural heritage systems “should be maintained, restored or, where possible improved”. The NHS in the LOP specifically includes buffers and is identified as a component of the Town’s Urban Structure, and s. 3.1 of the LOP states that it is to be “protected from development and preserved for the long term”. The Natural Area policies of the LOP indicate, at s. 16, that the purpose of such a designation “is for the long-term preservation of natural features and functions”. Neither Party raised any concerns with respect to public safety with respect to the Buffer, nor that the hazard lands associated with Sixteen Mile Creek are the 6 m erosion allowance, as per the evidence of Howatt and Singh.

Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 103392 (ON LT)

34This Tribunal Decision (“Valley Trail”) was referenced by the Appellant in closing submissions. Valley Trail concerns appeals from the refusal of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan application sought to accommodate a high rise, mixed-use development with four towers on the site of a privately owned golf course in the Don Valley. Due to its location, a central issue before the Tribunal in Valley Trail was whether the site was sufficiently safe from hazards to accommodate development in light of the limitations on development on ‘hazardous lands’ in the PPS 2024. The Vice-Chair concluded that the PPS does not feature a general prohibition on development in areas of natural hazard, but rather, requires a more measured assessment that requires an evidence-based risk analysis where development may be permitted in portions of hazardous lands where the risks are minor or could be mitigated.

35The Tribunal views this case as distinguishable from the present appeals as the issue of public safety with respect to the Buffer, development within the Buffer, or potential issues surrounding hazardous lands, were not raised during the hearing. The Appellant has been clear that the proposed development will occur within the tablelands and not within the Buffer area. While a change in land use is ‘development’, in these appeals the change from Low Residential Density to Natural Area will align this area with provincial policies and the recommendations of CH. In the event that the three-part analysis in Valley Trail does apply, the Tribunal finds that the geotechnical evidence provided to the Tribunal, and agreed upon by the experts, being a 6 m erosion allowance as measured from the top of bank inward, was standard and applicable to this matter. The proposed removal of the dwelling at 1024 Sixth Line, which was partially located within the 6 m erosion allowance, will reduce any associated public safety risk with the building’s placement. While the property at 1042 Sixth Line is partially located within the 15 m setback from Sixteen Mile Creek, as this is a heritage designated property, it may not be removed. The Tribunal was not made aware of any other public safety risk factors with respect to the 6 m erosion allowance from the LTSS. While it is noted that the zoning of the entirety of the Buffer as Natural Area would result in the house at 1042 Sixth Line being legal-non-conforming, that building is already subject to strict regulatory control through the heritage designation.

36The Tribunal rejects the Appellant’s position of setting the proposed Natural Area limit as the LTSS rather than extending it to include the Buffer. While the Appellant suggests, as a mitigation measure, zoning provisions to prevent development in the Buffer, another solution is to properly designate and zone the lands in accordance with the in-place policies and geotechnical data. As the Appellant is not proposing residential development within the Buffer, the Tribunal finds that designating this land as Natural Area is a more appropriate approach given that it is within the valleyland of Sixteen Mile Creek and the other policies referenced above. The Tribunal finds that the Buffer should be zoned Natural Area to better reflect direction from the PPS and policies of the LOP, to protect and preserve this area for the long-term.

Issue 2: Should the buffers to the natural areas be utilized as a POPS?

Position of the Parties

37The proposed use of the Buffer, set out in the October 2025 Site Plan, was a cause of considerable disagreement between the Parties. The October 2025 Site Plan concept includes three POPS which account for approximately 12.5% of the Subject Lands. The Town’s POPS-related issues mainly pertain to the Arboretum POPS which involve the Buffer bisecting 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line. It is the Town’s position that no recreational activity can take place within the Buffer, while the Appellant argues that the actual land use of the Buffer would not be changing and that it had been “anthropogenically disturbed as used as an amenity space for decades.”

38The intent of the POPS was explained to the Tribunal as a means of providing connectivity through the site. Levac’s evidence was that the arboretum POPS was “better value” than leaving this area as private and that the public would be able to “enjoy the valley”. Although, the Tribunal was later informed that there actually would not be any view of the valley from the POPS. Scott’s position was that there would be no negative impacts to vegetation and various species, providing mitigation measures are implemented. With respect to the implementation of the measures recommended by the 2024 EIS, which included that the proposed development not disturb or remove vegetation from the Sixteen Mile Creek valley corridor below the LTSS, Levac opined that such recommendations can be appropriately implemented through future conditions of site plan approval or a draft plan of condominium or subdivision.

39During cross-examination, Eldon Theodore, the Appellant’s urban design expert, opined that, even if the POPS were not permitted, the development proposal would still constitute good urban design. Theodore viewed the POPS as a “great additional asset but not particularly necessary”. Erik Klavins, the landscape architecture expert for the Appellant, opined that the heritage and historical features of the house at 1042 Sixth Line, and the heritage trees, should be open and celebrated, not hidden, and that the POPS were a means of sharing these features. Klavins’ evidence to the Tribunal was that the proposed development brought in additional features “beyond that required by a simple townhome development”, heritage aspects were incorporated and emphasized and were no longer hidden in the corner. On cross-examination, Klavins acknowledged that the arboretum POPS had no outlook over the ravine, and with respect to the round-about meandering route taken by the arboretum POPS, he noted, rather poetically, that “paths don’t have to lead anywhere”.

40Bernier took the Tribunal through an extensive analysis of policy documents with respect to the protection of natural heritage features and areas. Bernier took the Tribunal to s. 4.1.1 of the PPS that provides that natural features “shall be protected for the long term” and the definition of ‘negative impacts’ in relation to ‘natural features and areas’ as “degradation that threatened the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions”. Bernier also mentioned policies within the LOP, including the preamble of s. 16 of the LOP, which sets out the objective of the Town’s NHS, which is:

…a linked system of natural areas including natural features, hazard lands, buffers and linkages. It is intended that these natural areas be protected from development and preserved for the long term to promote sustainability and contribute to the quality of life in the Town.

41Bernier opined that a POPS in the Buffer was “inconsistent with the goals of buffers and natural designated areas”. This testimony centred around the position that what was proposed for the Buffer was not protecting the NHS. Bernier acknowledged that there were some permissions in s. 16.1.8(c) of the LOP for activities within the Buffer, which includes essential public works and “permitted recreational uses”. However, she was steadfast during cross-examination that the proposal of a POPS in the Buffer would encroach into the natural features and that the area needs to be naturalized, as opposed to utilized for recreational activity.

Tribunal Findings and Analysis

42The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features, and functions, is a matter of provincial interest under s. 2(a) of the Act. Section 4.1.1 of the PPS provides that natural features “shall be protected for the long term”. The Town also directed the Tribunal’s attention to Section 4.1.8 of the PPS, which provides:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological function.

43The PPS defines ‘negative impacts’ in relation to ‘natural features and areas’ as “degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions”. The Town’s position is that the natural features and ecological function would be “threatened” by the Appellant’s proposed designation, zoning, and uses within the Buffer, and as such, the applications are not consistent with the PPS. The purpose of the Natural Area designation, as listed in the LOP, is the “long-term preservation of natural features and functions”. The permitted uses within this designation, listed at s. 16.1.1 of the LOP, include: “passive recreation features such as trails, walkways, and bicycle paths”. The experts disagreed on what constituted “passive” recreation.

44While Bernier was adamant in oral testimony that a POPS would constitute a “negative impact” on the Buffer that would threaten the integrity of the natural features, the Tribunal was provided no supporting ecological evidence for this position. The Tribunal preferred the evidence provided by Scott, who acknowledged during cross-examination that full naturalization of the Buffer would have a greater ecological benefit; however, provided ecological evidence in the form of the 2024 EIS to support the position that mitigation measures could minimize any detrimental impacts. The Tribunal finds that the change in designation and zoning of the Buffer to Natural Area does not preclude the utilization of part of the Buffer area for POPS. The LOP explicitly permits the passive recreational use proposed in the Buffer (including the walkways and/or trails) per s. 16.1.1 of the LOP, and the Tribunal was not provided persuasive evidence that a POPS path somehow differed from any other type of trail. However, the Tribunal accepts Howatt’s evidence with respect to the 6 m erosion hazard measured from the stable top of bank, and appropriate measures must be undertaken to ensure that any use of the Buffer for POPS does not encroach upon the 6 m erosion allowance. As noted by the Appellant in closing submission, the draft ZBLA can be refined explicitly to excluded buildings and certain structures in the Buffer and additional protections can be implemented at the site plan stage, including the mitigation measures noted in the 2024 EIS to protect the natural area.

45The Tribunal finds that passive recreational uses in Natural Areas, such as trails, are specifically permitted by the LOP, and as such, finds the utilization of the Buffer as a POPS is appropriate, providing that this usage does not encroach on the 6 m erosion allowance, as measured from the stable top of bank.

Issue 3: Does the proposed redevelopment conserve the cultural heritage resources within the site?

Position of the Parties

46The Tribunal heard from two heritage experts with respect to this issue: 1) Dan Currie, for the Appellant, whose firm completed a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources on the 1042 Sixth Line and to provide mitigation measures, where necessary; and 2) Christine Uchiyama, for the Town. The Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan (“CHL Plan”) for 1042 Sixth Line, was co-authored by Uchiyama and adopted by the Town in 2021. The evidence of the two arborists, Peter Kuntz and Tony Molnar, was primarily directed towards the preservation of the heritage trees on site. Currie and Uchiyama agreed that the impact of the proposed development upon the cultural heritage value and interest of 1042 Sixth Line was limited to the extent to which the property’s status as a representative example of a designed landscape will be affected if the development is approved. The experts were also in agreement that, if the appeals were successful, the Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations set out in s. 8.0 of the HIA were appropriate. The oral evidence at the hearing was focused on the following ‘heritage attributes’ that contribute to the ‘cultural heritage value or interest’ of the site, as set out in Heritage By-law:

a. The formal entrance drive lined on both sides with mature spruce planted at short intervals forming a Y-shape as it opens to the formal circle at the main entrance;

b. The landscape design of the house grounds, including: … The placement of specimen deciduous and coniferous trees adjacent to the house (ginko biloba and magnolia), in the formal drive circle (beech) and in an “arboretum” east of the open lawn (oak, beech, birch, maple);

c. The orientation of the house closing the vista along the entrance drive and placement of the windows to take advantage of that view and of views across the lawn to the south and over the creek valley to the west.

47The change to the Subject Lands that affect heritage attributes are:

a. The development of one block of townhomes (Block F) on a portion of the lands identified as the arboretum, resulting in the removal of one Category 1 tree (Red Oak tree);

b. Alterations to the formal drive circle in the front of the house at the end of the driveway to provide a new internal road, resulting in the removal of four Norway Spruce trees that form the southern leg of the “Y”; and

c. Alteration of the elements that frame the view of the house and from the entrance drive.

48It was Currie’s opinion that the proposed development would result in an “overall minor impact to the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the designated property at 1042 Sixth Line”. Currie testified that the formal entrance driveway lined with mature Norway Spruce trees would be subject to a moderate impact due to the alteration of the formal circle and the removal of the four Norway Spruce that form the southern leg of the “Y”. The expert submitted that the form and function of the entrance drive remains and the formal setting of the foreground of the house will remain. However, the alterations result in a loss of symmetry of the entrance at the formal circle. To Currie, this is not a major change in that the resource is not totally altered, but it is a moderate impact, which is a “noticeable change”.

49During cross-examination, Currie conceded that the Norway Spruce trees were a significant attribute to the cultural heritage of the site. Currie’s evidence was that the closely planted Norway Spruce trees of the “Y”-shape frame the view which is the American Beech tree that is planted inside the formal drive circle, the form of the ground (meaning the circle and driveway), and the residence. To Currie there is a difference in the importance of the elements, as the trees of the “Y”-shape are, in his opinion, not the focal point of the view. Currie acknowledged the removal of some Norway Spruce trees would leave the remainder of the “Y” feature, in the words of Biggart, “like a hockey stick”, instead of a “Y”. However, Currie’s opinion was that, even with a portion of the “Y” trees removed, the protected view was still there. Currie testified that this particular view was an arrival view, a kinetic one, and there was not a particular stationary point to get that view. Currie explained that, while some of the protected views were very linear view taken from a specific point, such as the rubble-stoned gatepost looking up the tree lined driveway, the arrival view is not one taken from a specific point.

50With respect to the landscape design, Currie’s evidence was that there would be a minor impact due to the alterations in the area of the arboretum and the loss of one specimen tree, a Red Oak tree, which the Town had previously agreed to its removal. The arboretum would be altered due to the development of Block F, and the Tribunal was informed that Blocks A through E, could be developed with no cultural heritage impacts. When pressed by Biggart during cross-examination as to whether it was better from a cultural heritage aspect to not construct the units in Block F that intrude onto the 1042 Sixth Line, Currie acknowledged that there were impacts that could be avoided with the removal of some of the Block F townhome units.

51Currie’s evidence was that the proposed development was consistent with the requirements set out in the HIA, with two exceptions being: 1) the alteration of the formal circle; and 2) the impact to the framing of the view of the house from the entrance drive. To Currie, these impacts were “relatively minor and acceptable”. In Currie’s opinion, the alternations to the formal circle would alter, rather than destroy or remove, the attributes. The formal circle will remain, complete with the specimen American Beech tree at its centre. Similarly, he noted that the view of the house from the entrance to the formal circle will remain and not be obstructed, and that only the framing of the view will change. To Currie, the proposed development is consistent with the overall intent and guidance of the CHL Plan. Currie emphasized in oral evidence that the CHL Plan does not specify that 100% compliance is required, hence the use of a checklist. While agreeing that the proposal was not in complete compliance with all aspects of the CHL Plan, Currie’s opinion was that the proposal was consistent with the overall intent and guidance of the CHL Plan.

52Klavins’s opinion was that over time the elements of the 1042 Sixth Line landscaping have become fragmented; however, the redevelopment of the Subject Lands would provide an opportunity to re-institute an organized structure through preservation of existing landscaping and the introduction of new, sympathetic landscaping features. This would include the tree-lined driveway becoming a POPS and providing pedestrian access to the residence at 1042 Sixth Line and the Subject Lands. It was the collective opinion of the Appellant’s experts that the proposed development would result in alterations, some of which could be mitigated, but that it would not remove or destroy any heritage attributes, and as such, the overall impacts were minor.

53Kuntz testified that the proposed development would result in the preservation of at least 83 of 88 heritage trees. This includes the removal of one heritage tree that the Parties had agreed could be removed. The proposal would preserve all the Norway Spruce trees along each side of the tree-lined driveway, all Northern Spruce trees on the northern side of the “Y”-shaped opening and the trees on the 1042 Sixth Line grounds, including the American Beech tree in the formal circle, the Magnolia tree, and Ginko tree. Molnar agreed tree protection zones for such trees had been improved from the earlier iterations of the development proposal. With respect to potential impacts to the American Beech tree located inside the formal circle, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Kuntz that the pruning of branches and encroachment on roots would not have a negative impact on the health of this tree, nor would the pruning of branches of the Norway Spruce trees along the southern row of tree-lined driveway. The tree-lined driveway is already in close proximity to fencing for houses north of the Subject Lands, and the asphalt formal entrance driveway. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Kuntz that the proximity of development of Blocks C and D would not impact the lasting health of these trees.

54Uchiyama’s evidence was that the proposal will result in adverse impacts to the cultural heritage of the site and that it would not conserve the cultural heritage value of the site. It was Uchiyama’s opinion that the proposed development would not preserve the heritage attributes and therefore the proposal was not consistent with the policies of the PPS and LOP. The Tribunal was taken to s. 4.6 of the PPS, which addresses cultural heritage and archeology. In particular, Uchiyama highlighted s. 4.6.1, which states that a “protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved”. The Tribunal was also taken to s. 4.6.2, which states that “planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved”. The Tribunal was also taken to policies in s. 5.3.5 of the LOP, which highlights that, in reviewing any proposal for construction, demolition, relocation, removal or for alteration within, adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of a cultural heritage landscape, the Town shall be guided by the CHL Plan. The purpose of such the CHL Plan is to guide and mitigate alterations to the cultural heritage landscape that are likely to affect its cultural heritage value and/or heritage attributes.

55Uchiyama testified that the removal of part of the “Y”-shape of Norway Spruce trees would “demolish that heritage aspect” as removal of that group of trees would alter the attribute, and as such, the attribute would no longer have the same form. Uchiyama’s position was that removing some of the spruce trees would cause an interruption of key relationships between the laneway and the residence. Uchiyama testified that isolation matters in cultural heritage landscapes, as context matters, and the definition and interrelationships are integral to preserving a landscape. In short, it was Uchiyama’s opinion that the integrity of the landscape, as a whole, is impacted if aspects were isolated. Uchiyama’s testimony was that physical changes can have a significant negative impact on the value of heritage attributes. During cross-examination, Uchiyama conceded that cultural heritage is not static and that heritage should not be considered in a vacuum. There was also an acknowledgement during cross that the Heritage Act does not define ‘retained’ in the context of what cultural value or interest is to be kept, and Uchiyama agreed that there are “degrees of retention” with respect to cultural heritage.

56Molnar testified that the heritage designation of certain trees was a factor to be considered in terms of risk tolerance, and that as such a more conservative approach was warranted. He warned that the consequences of loss of some trees were contrary to applicable policies which require “conservation”. The goal is that the trees thrive, rather than just survive construction.

Tribunal Findings and Analysis

57The Appellant brought two appeals under the Heritage Act, explaining to the Tribunal that, out of an abundance of caution, appeals were filed under both ss. 33(9) and 34.1(1) of the Heritage Act. The Appellant explained that if the Tribunal found that the removal of heritage aspects was an alteration, then s. 33 of the Heritage Act would apply. Alternatively, if the Tribunal found that removal of the heritage attributes was demolition, then s. 34 of the Heritage Act would apply. The Tribunal notes the definition of ‘alter’ found in the Heritage Act, which reads as follows: “…means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb and “alteration” has a corresponding meaning”.

58The Heritage Act does not provide a definition of ‘demolition’. During Uchiyama’s oral evidence, ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ were used interchangeably, whereas Currie tended to describe the removal of trees as an ‘alteration’. The Tribunal finds that the proposed redevelopment’s impacts on the design and physical value of 1042 Sixth Line are through alteration rather than demolition, with respect to the physical appearance of the tree-line drive, the landscape design of the house grounds, and the entry drive vista. The Tribunal does not consider the removal of the Red Oak tree to be controversial as the Parties had previously agreed that it could be removed, and the Town provided no evidence to the contrary with respect to the removal of this tree. Therefore, with respect to the removal of a portion of the “Y”-shape of Norway Spruce trees, the Tribunal finds that this is an alteration of part of a heritage attribute, rather than a destruction of the attribute. As such, the Tribunal finds that the appeal for the alteration of heritage aspects is properly conducted under s. 33 of the Heritage Act.

59The uncontradicted evidence presented to the Tribunal was that the proposed development fully conserves the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of 1042 Sixth Line as it relates to its historical, associative, and contextual value, pursuant to paragraphs 1(2)4 and 1(2)8 of the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, O.Reg. 9/06 (“Heritage Regulation”). Currie and Uchiyama disagreed as to whether the proposal conserves the attributes of 1042 Sixth Line as it relates to its design and physical value, per paragraph 1(2)1 of the Heritage Regulation.

60The Tribunal accepts Currie’s oral testimony and HIA that development will have an acceptable impact on the cultural heritage landscape and will have no impact on the residential building – provided mitigation measures, set out in the HIA, are implemented. As such, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has sufficient regards to s. 2(d) of the Act, which identifies that the conservation of features of cultural heritage interest is a provincial interest. The PPS defines conserved as follows:

… the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and assessments.

61The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Currie with respect to consistency with the applicable policies of the PPS, as the Tribunal finds that the heritage attributes will be conserved, albeit with some alteration to some of the heritage attributes, that there will be no impact on the residential building provided the mitigation measures in the HIA are implemented, and that there will be no impacts on adjacent lands. The Appellant argued in closing submissions that the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated that the concept of a Cultural Heritage Landscape is not found in the Heritage Act, rather it is derived from the PPS, municipal by-laws, and other planning instruments. The Appellant submitted that the absence of historical, associative, and contextual impacts from the revised proposal indicates that it represents good heritage conservation, which have been balanced with what Currie opined were the redevelopment’s acceptable impacts upon the design and physical value of 1042 Sixth Line through alteration, rather than demolition of the physical appearance of the entrance drive, the landscape design of the house grounds, and the entrance drive vista.

62With respect to s. 5 of the LOP, which includes the Town’s cultural heritage policies, the Tribunal accepts Currie’s evidence that the proposal appropriately addresses these policies as the cultural heritage resources will be conserved and integrated into the proposed development, with the HIA having assessed potential impacts on heritage resources and provided mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

63The Tribunal finds it compelling that that almost all of the heritage trees at 1042 Sixth Line will be preserved and retained in their original location. The Category 1 trees that will be removed – one Red Oak in the arboretum area and the four Norway Spruce – will be replaced. Uchiyama emphasized that that there are so many intentionally placed trees that the loss of “any one of those specimen trees does constitute an adverse impact and does not conserve the cultural heritage landscape”. The Tribunal finds this a very dichotomous approach. Any one of the heritage trees on 1042 Sixth Line could die and fall through natural processes, and if that were to occur is there still an adverse impact to the cultural heritage landscape? The Tribunal finds that Uchiyama’s evidence was unyielding in their opinion that the loss of a single heritage tree would be detrimental to the cultural heritage landscape and would constitute an adverse impact, and not conservation.

64The Tribunal notes Molnar’s point that the heritage designation to certain trees on the Subject Lands is a factor to be considered in terms of risk tolerance. However, the Tribunal finds that the tree protection zones (“TPZ”), and other protective measures outlined by Kuntz, meet, if not exceed, the Town’s requirements set out in the Town’s tree by-law.

65After visiting the site, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Currie with respect to the kinetic view of the driveway and circle, that this is not a protected view from a single vantage point, and while part of the picture frame will be removed, the picture itself – being the formal circle and residence – will remain unaltered and unobstructed. With respect to the cultural heritage policies of s. 5 of the LOP, the Tribunal finds that the cultural heritage resources of 1042 Sixth Line will be conserved and integrated into the proposed development. The Tribunal accepts Currie’s evidence that the HIA has assessed impacts, considered alternatives, and recommends measures to mitigate expected impacts to the heritage attributes created by development. While the Tribunal notes Uchiyama’s evidence with respect to the interrelationship between the different heritage attributes, the Tribunal finds that the proposed tree removals will not impact the overall integrity of the landscape.

66In summary, the Tribunal finds that, while the proposed redevelopment will alter parts of the cultural heritage landscape, which will result in a minor impact to the cultural heritage attributes associated with the cultural heritage landscape, these impacts have been minimized. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will conserve cultural heritage resources within the site, providing the mitigation measures listed in the HIA are implemented.

Issue 4: Does the proposed redevelopment reflect a level of intensification that respects LOP policies?

Position of the Parties

67Intensification is defined in the LOP as the development of a property, site, or area at a higher density than currently exists. While the Town acknowledged in opening statements that medium density could be supported on the Subject Lands, the number of units that would be an appropriate fit for the Subject Lands and the surrounding neighbourhood, was contested. The LOP sets a density range for medium density residential between 30 and 50 dwelling upsh (s. 11.3.2). Based on Levac’s calculations, and using a site area of 1.19 ha, which includes the Buffer, the proposed density, based on 52 units, was 43.7 upsh. This site area excludes the additional lands of 1042 Sixth Line that are not proposed to be developed at this time.

68The Town did not specify where on the medium residential density range they would like to see the development land. Robert Thun, land-use planner for the Town, did not support density at the level proposed by the Appellant of 43.7 upsh. Thun excluded the Buffer from his calculation of site area, and as such, reached the upper limit of 50 upsh. The Appellant put it to Thun during cross-examination that he had utilized the definition of ‘Net Hectare’ in the Town’s North Oakville East Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law No. 2009-189, which are inapplicable to the Application, in order to justify his opinion. Thun denied this and reaffirmed that his calculation of 50 upsh excluded the Buffer, as no units would be permitted in this area if it was designated Natural Area, and no density should be attributed to the area. Thun also referenced s. 28.3.1 of the LOP, which provides that it is “not intended that the full range of uses or densities permitted by this Plan will be permitted by the Zoning By-law in all locations”. In closing submissions, the Town raised the point that the difference in density calculations between the Town and Appellant “demonstrate the sensitivity of the calculation to lands included in the denominator” and that by including the Buffer in its density calculation the Appellant had “artificially diluted the density calculation in a manner that understates the intensity of the area occupied by the buildings”.

69The Appellant argued that the Buffer should not have been omitted from the Town’s density calculation as this is only permitted where public lands are to be dedicated or conveyed, which is not the case in these appeals. Further, the Appellant submitted was that the upsh density calculation is not the best indicator of intensity. The example provided to the Tribunal was that if the Appellant kept the same concept but decided to combine every two townhouse units into one larger unit, the density would drop in half (26 units/1.19 ha = 21.84 upsh) despite the site having the same gross floor area (“GFS”) and built form.

Tribunal Analysis and Findings

70Levac acknowledged during cross-examination that in low density residential areas outside of the SPAs density up to 29 upsh is permitted, whereas in the SPA that applies to the Subject Lands, density it is capped at 10 upsh. In short, the Appellant seeks a density that would be well over 300% of what is presently permitted for upsh under the RL1/RL1-0 Zones. However, the Town explicitly stated in opening submissions that medium residential density could be achieved on the Subject Lands. As such, it is has implicitly rejected the cap of 10 upsh for the site. What remains for the Tribunal to determine is whether the October 2025 Site Plan represents over intensification.

71The LOP definition of ‘Site area, or site hectare’ is as follows,

includes residential lots or blocks only and excludes any public lands. In the case of development, any public land requires to be dedicated or conveyed shall not be included for the purpose of calculating the site hectarage.

72This definition does not explicitly exclude lands restricted from development due to environmental constraints, and the Appellant has been clear that it has no intention of transferring ownership of the Buffer to the Town. Section 16.1.9(c) of the LOP states that development is not permitted within 15 m of the stable top-of-bank of Sixteen Mile Creek, except for compatible permitted recreational uses, essential public works, and utilities. This does not exclude the Buffer area from a calculation of site area, rather it restricts what uses are permitted on such lands.

73The Tribunal acknowledges the Town’s argument that, to achieve a realistic assessment of the proposed density, the area to be designated Medium Density should be limited to exclude areas where development is not permitted, such as the Buffer; however, this would require importing a definition not supported by the LOP or the applicable ZBL. The Tribunal finds that, in this matter, while the uses of the Buffer are restricted, those lands are not excluded from the site area calculation.

74While Jay’s opinion was that the proposed development was not compatible with s. 11.1.8 of the LOP, which sets out the criteria for intensification within a stable residential neighbourhood. The Tribunal notes that the Town has already acknowledged in closing submissions that “a sensitively designed medium residential density development could be accommodated within the site”. The Town’s position is weighted more to the computability with the LOP’s intensification strategy and policies with respect to the protection of neighbourhood character. The issue of character will be addressed below.

75In closing submissions, the Town submitted that a cap of the number of units, or lot coverage, could be utilized as a means of managing density on site. The Tribunal finds that the applicable density calculation for the Subject Lands includes the Buffer in the site area, and that the number provided by Levac, of 43.7 upsh, is within the range for Medium Density Residential provided for in the LOP. Given the fact that the proposed development has undergone several revisions, the Tribunal will cap density for the Subject Lands at 43.7 upsh, based on the site area of 1.19 ha.

Issue 5: Does the proposed redevelopment address issues with respect to fit with the surrounding neighbourhood?

Position of the Parties

76Levac’s evidence was that the application conforms to the policies for residential intensification. Chapter 4 of the LOP provides the Town’s growth management policy framework, including s. 4.3 (Residential Intensification Outside of Growth Areas), which applies to the Subject Lands. This section acknowledges that some growth and change, such as an infill development, may occur outside of the areas identified in the LOP to accommodate intensification, providing that the character of the area is preserved. Permitted uses within such a designation are listed at s. 11.3.1 of the LOP, and include “multiple-attached dwelling units” as well as “existing detached and semi-detached dwellings”. Levac readily admitted on cross-examination that the October 2025 Site Plan will not maintain the integrity of the large lots, hence the need for an OPA. Levac pointed out that the site was underutilized but did agree with the Town’s counsel that importing a character that is different from what is presently permitted, in this case townhouse-style units, would be a change in character.

77To Theodore, the Subject Lands location at the edge of an established neighbourhood provides an opportunity to accommodate development of greater height and density while continuing to be compatible with the surrounding context. Theodore provided the Tribunal with comprehensive evidence on the Town’s Urban Design Manual (“Manual”) and the built form of the six townhome blocks, including Block A, the townhouse block running parallel with Sixth Line. He drew the Tribunal’s attention to several design features, such as the pitched roof, dormer windows, and sunken front entrances that, in his opinion, when employed with landscaping helps to enhance compatibility and transition to the opposite side of Sixth Line. Theodore took the Tribunal through a detailed analysis of how the design of the townhome blocks would integrate into the existing neighbourhood. One point of contention related to the proposed elevation of the townhome blocks. Theodore’s opinion was that a transition from an as of right built of up to three storeys per 9 m on the opposite side of Sixth Line to the proposed three storeys per 12 m future development was a gradual and appropriate form of transition that maintains and protects the existing character neighbourhood. With respect to integrating the development into the surrounding neighbourhood, Theodore’s evidence was that the proposal reflects the “best practices for transition height and density to the established neighbourhood” due to buffering created by future tree plantings, the 20 m Sixth Line right-of-way, and substantial front yard setbacks of the dwellings on the opposite side of Sixth Line. Theodore testified that the built form would have high quality architecture elements of brick, cultured stone which would complement the stone of the dwellings on the opposite side of the street. Theodore’s evaluation of the proposal against Part A, B, and C of the Manual was that the proposal had sufficient regard for all Parts of the Manual.

78The block of townhomes facing Sixth Line was estimated during the hearing to be between 56 and 57 m. Theodore confirmed in his cross-examination that there would be no physical break in this block of units.

79Theodore opined that three storeys was not “towering or imposing”. During Theodore’s cross-examination, the Town pointed out that the revised proposal under appeal was 3 m closer to Sixth Line and that the proposed building height of three storeys had already been rejected by the Vice-Chair in the 2019 Interim Decision. However, the Tribunal is not bound by the Vice-Chair’s decisions relating to the Subject Lands.

80Whereas the Appellant took the approach that compatibility with existing character was the appropriate lens through which to view an infill development. Thun disagreed and testified that guiding principles of the LOP, as set out in s. 2.2.1(a) were critical in how the proposed development should be assessed.

2.2.1 Preserving and creating a livable community in order to:

a) preserve, enhance, and protect the distinct character, cultural heritage, living environment, and sense of community of neighbourhoods…

81It was Thun’s opinion that the development was an attempt to “maximize development” at the expense of the character of the neighbourhood, describing the development as “a very intense proposal”.

82Catherine Jay, who provided urban design evidence for the Town, opined that the October 2025 Site Plan would “drastically” change the character of the neighbourhood, would not preserve it, and did not represent good urban design. Jay described the architectural style of the surrounding neighbourhood as “eclectic”, calling it an older neighbourhood that has grown up over the years, and includes many unique homes that you would not find in a typical subdivision. Jay’s testimony included the comment that the proposed development did not have to match the existing character, but protection of the character and transition were required.

83Much time was spent during the hearing on the definition of ‘storey’ and just how many storeys were the proposed townhouse blocks. The Tribunal was informed that the three-storey townhouse block would have sunken front entrances, resulting in lower ceilings for the first level of living space that would be marginally below the 1.8 m limit prescribed in the ZBL. The Town’s position was that the sunken entrance was “an obvious attempt to cram as much building as possible”. To Jay, the proposed height of the townhomes would not maintain or protect a lower rise surrounding neighbourhood and opined that there would be a significant difference in height between existing properties on Sixth Line and the proposed development. In Jay’s view, this would impact the overall character of a stable residential neighbourhood. Jay’s credibility on the issue of storeys was hindered by reference to the proposed townhomes as a ‘mid-rise development’. On cross-examination Jay was taken to the relevant urban design policies in the LOP that a mid-rise building is between six and 12 storeys and she was questioned as to why she had applied mid-rise building guidelines to a low-rise development. Jay acknowledged that the townhome development was a low-rise development; however, Jay continued in her belief that the mid-rise guidelines applied without providing the Tribunal with a solid policy-based reason based for this stance.

Tribunal Analysis and Findings

84The Tribunal’s findings on this issue are guided in part by the Town’s admission that medium residential density could be achieved on the Subject Lands. This is relevant as that would necessitate a change to lot size, and a townhome style development would, as Levac phrased it, be “importing” a character into the existing stable neighbourhood. The Appellant’s experts took the approach of compatibility with the character of the existing neighbourhood rather than the Town’s evidence, which leaned more to protection of character. ‘Character’ is defined in the LOP as meaning the “collective quantities and characteristics that distinguish a particular area or neighbourhood”. It is a combination of elements from both the public and private realm.

85As the Subject Lands are tucked away in a corner at the fringe of the neighbourhood, with the QEW immediately to the south and Sixteen Mile Creek behind the site, the Tribunal’s position is that the scale of the neighbourhood, in terms of its character, is given less weight in this case as opposed to a proposed development in the centre of a stable neighbourhood. However, the Tribunal is mindful that the SPA provisions, which intended to “protect the unique character of this area within the Town”, presently apply to the Subject Lands. A stable neighbourhood is not synonymous with a static neighbourhood. The LOP anticipates infill development within stable residential neighbourhoods and has provided a policy framework to guide such growth. Section 11.1.9 of the LOP provides the criteria for evaluating development within a stable residential community to “maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character”. The list includes the following provisions that the Tribunal considers of primary relevance to this appeal:

a) The built form of development, including scale, height, massing, architectural character and materials, is to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

b) Development should be compatible with the setbacks, orientation and separation distances within the surrounding neighbourhood.

c) Where a development represents a transition between different land use designations or housing forms, a gradation in building height shall be used to achieve a transition in height from adjacent development.

86The Tribunal notes that s. 11.1.9(a) and (b) of the LOP reference ‘compatibility’ with the surrounding neighbourhood. ‘Compatible’ is defined in Part F of the LOP as follows:

means the development or redevelopment of uses which may not necessarily be the same as, or similar to, the existing development, but can coexist with the surrounding area without unacceptable adverse impact.

87The Tribunal has reviewed the LOP objectives with respect to Residential Areas, and notes that while to “main, protect and enhance the character of existing Residential Areas” is one objective, so too is the encouragement of an appropriate mix of housing types, densities, design, and promotion of a compact urban form.

88The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Theodore with respect to urban design and accepts the conclusion that a three-storey building provides a reasonable transition, in terms of height, to the residences across the street, in accordance with LOP ss. 6.9.2 and 6.9.9 and is an appropriate form of transition that maintains and protects the existing neighbourhood character. The Tribunal notes that the October 2025 Site Plan incorporates a buffer strip along Sixth Line to assist with the transition between the Subject Lands and the east side of Sixth Line. In addition, the setbacks from Blocks C and D to Sunnycrest Lane have been increased, which provides further increased separation to the neighbouring property owners on Sunnycrest Lane. The Tribunal accepts Theodore’s opinion that the proposal would utilize a built form that would be compatible with the existing context, as required by s. 6.9.1 of the LOP, and that the design decisions would create a built form that has no adverse or unacceptable impacts on the established neighbourhood. With respect to the townhouse block proposed to face Sixth Line, the Tribunal accepts Theodore’s evidence that there would be sufficient design features in the block to avoid a lengthy street wall.

89The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is consistent with the LOP’s mission and guiding principles and that it is an appropriate use for the lands which is compatible with existing surrounding land uses. The Tribunal finds that the evidence presented was compelling that the development will protect the NHS and conserve cultural heritage resources. The development will make good use of existing infrastructure, higher transit, and will not impact existing traffic patterns.

Issue 6: Do the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Heritage Appeal meet legislative requirements?

90From a policy context, the issues before the Tribunal in this hearing require a general determination of whether the proposed OPA and the proposed ZBLA have sufficient regard to the matters of provincial interest, as listed in s.2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the LOP. In addition, the Tribunal has considered the non-statutory policies presented by the Parties, as well as the Participant Statements.

91The Tribunal finds that the October 2025 Site Plan does have proper regard for matters of provincial interest related to the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, the conservation of features of significant cultural or historical interest, and the adequate provision of a full range of housing. With respect to consistency with the PPS, the Tribunal finds that the evidence produced supported consistency with policies related to natural heritage, cultural heritage, intensification, and housing. The PPS calls for housing intensification but also directs that cultural heritage be conserved. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development has balanced a compact urban form development while still retaining the vistas and interrelationships between the heritage attributes of 1042 Sixth Line.

92While not mentioned in the above analysis, the Tribunal does find that the applications conform to the Region’s Official Plan (now a Town Official Plan), with respect to policies related to the regional NHS and the inclusion of buffers in the Natural Area designation. Lastly, the Tribunal finds that the proposed amendments conform to the policies within the LOP, with particular reference to policies with respect to residential intensification and protection of the NHS. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Theodore that the proposal has appropriate regard for the Town’s Manual.

93The Appellant argued in closing submissions that, whether the October 2025 Site Plan’s setbacks, maximum height, and other performance standards are appropriate is a matter to be addressed at the site plan approval stage, which can then deal with the finer details of the development proposal. The Tribunal accepts the Appellant’s submission that the proposed zoning standards are appropriate as they provided a “workable basis for the Tribunal’s adjudication” as to whether the proposal represents contextually appropriate development.

Heritage Act Appeal

94For the reasons listed earlier in this Decision, the Tribunal finds that this appeal is properly filed under s. 33(9) of the Heritage Act and dismisses the appeal brought under s. 34(1) of the Heritage Act. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the removal of two or three townhome units from Block F would result in saving the southern portion of the Norway Spruce trees from the “Y”-shape, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of Currie and finds that, while the framing of the view has been slightly altered, the vistas and relationships between the attributes remains intact. Based on the oral evidence of Currie and Uchiyama, the main goal of heritage conservation in this appeal was to retain the interconnectivity of heritage attributes, landscapes, and vistas. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will preserve the cultural heritage landscape at 1042 Sixth Line. The heritage permit proposes alterations to the heritage attributes of 1042 Sixth Line, which retain the cultural heritage value, or significance, due to a minimal overall impact, are appropriate, and represent good heritage planning.

CONCLUSION

95While the Subject Lands are within a SPA, the Tribunal finds that the Subject Lands can accommodate a medium density development. There was no disagreement between the Parties, either in written or oral testimony, that the site is well serviced by existing services, amenities, transportation, transit systems, and infrastructure without requiring any expansion or additional expenditure. This development must balance appropriate and good planning with an extensive checklist of variables, including slope stability, protection of the valleyland, transitions, massing and urban design. The Tribunal finds that the designation and zoning of the Buffer as Natural Area will ensure its protection and preservation for the long run, as will the removal of the residence at 1024 Sixth Line. This will be a compact form development that will respect the existing character of its surroundings and will co-exist at the edge of an established neighbourhood, without any adverse impacts to same. The opening up of the tree-lined driveway as a POPS will assist with the integration of existing heritage features, and the other POPS will provide amenity space for unit owners and the public.

96With respect to the concerns raised in the Participant Statements, the Tribunal finds that any traffic concerns should be allayed by the testimony of both the Appellant and Town’s transportation engineering experts as they agreed that traffic would continue to operate at acceptable levels during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. The Tribunal also notes that the previously proposed development access along Sunnycrest Lane is no longer part of the development proposal. The Tribunal agrees with the Appellant and the Town that the site can accommodate a medium density development, and the development meets the Town’s urban design policies. While development will result in the loss of many trees, it is noteworthy that the proposed development will have a canopy coverage of 38.29%, which exceeds the Town’s recommendation of 20%, through the retention of 143 existing trees and 81 new trees to be planted on site.

97Participant Statements from five individuals were received during the Case Management Conference stage of this proceeding. These have been reviewed and considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision on this appeal. The written statements raised concerns that the development had the potential to destroy the character of the neighbourhood, and that people in the community would not object to a low density development, but found the townhome units to be “packed into an inappropriate location”. Traffic concerns were raised, as was the Appellant’s “assumed use of Sunnycrest Lane, which is a private road, for residents to access the development”.

98The Tribunal must consider its public interest mandate and make a decision that is in the public interest. Conserving cultural attributes is important and the Tribunal finds that the preservation of almost all the heritage trees on site to be of particular importance, and the designation and zoning of the Buffer as Natural Area will preserve and protect the natural heritage features in this area. This is an underutilized site, whose location makes it an ideal candidate for a sensitive medium density residential development, which will assist in providing a range of housing options, without changing the character of this stable neighbourhood.

INTERIM ORDER

99THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in subparagraphs [99]2., [99]3., and [99].4 below, and the draft Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”), set out in Attachment 3 to this Interim Order, to be generally in accordance with the architectural plans and drawings, dated October 7, 2025 and attached to this Decision as Attachment 4, are hereby approved in principle.

2. The OPA will be revised, to the satisfaction of the Town of Oakville (“Town”) and 1463292 Ontario Inc. and Taylor Rogers (“Appellant”), to reflect that:

i. The entirety of the natural heritage system (“NHS”), including the full 15 metre (“m”) buffers across 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line, measured outward from the long-term stable top of bank, will be designated as Natural Area.

ii. A holding provision will be inserted to ensure the demolition and removal of the dwelling at 1024 Sixth Line, at the Appellant’s cost;

3. The ZBLA will be revised, to the satisfaction of the Town and Appellant, to reflect that:

iii. The existing dwelling at 1042 Sixth Line will continue to be accessible from the tree-lined driveway;

iv. A holding provision will be inserted to ensure the demolition and removal of the dwelling at 1024 Sixth Line, at the Appellant’s cost;

v. The entirety of the NHS, including the full 15 m buffers across 1024 and 1042 Sixth Line, will be zoned as Natural Area; and

vi. The maximum units per hectare (“upsh”) for the Subject Lands is capped at 43.7 upsh.

4. The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation by the Town Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the OPA submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory by the Town’s Solicitor; and

b. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the ZBLA submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory by the Town’s Solicitor.

100The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the OPA and ZBLA and the issuance of the Final Order.

101If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the OPA and ZBLA, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [99] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Friday, October 30, 2026, the Appellant and Town shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the OPA and ZBLA and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

102The appeal by Taylor Rogers, under s. 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act is allowed.

103The appeal under s. 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act is dismissed.

104No costs are awarded to any Party in respect of this Interim Order.

“G.A. Croser”

G.A. CROSER

Member

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4