News   Apr 17, 2026
 78     0 
News   Apr 17, 2026
 290     0 
News   Apr 17, 2026
 278     0 

OMB protects 900 ha from development in Oakville

rdaner

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
9,356
Reaction score
39,936
Hard-won green victory for Oakville

North Oakville plan (.pdf)
OMB approves unprecedented plan to preserve 900 hectares amid development for 50,000 people
Jan 17, 2008 04:30 AM
Phinjo Gombu
Staff Reporter

The Ontario Municipal Board has upheld a precedent-setting decision by the Town of Oakville to preserve an extensive network of linked natural heritage corridors as the "first priority" and foundation for a massive residential development plan for about 50,000 people.

The proposed development is slated for mostly farmland and forest lots in an area bounded by Dundas St. W., Ninth Line, Tremaine Rd. and Highway 407 – one of the last large blocks of developable land left in Oakville.

The town's proposal means an unprecedented 900 hectares, or more than one-third of the 3,400 hectares of developable land, will be preserved as green space, something Oakville Mayor Rob Burton calls a "breakthrough" and a first in green planning in Ontario.

The ruling is expected to have ramifications across the GTA, especially in other high-profile developments in the works such as the provincially planned green-and-sustainable community for about 70,000 people on the Seaton Lands in north Pickering.

It's also expected to play a significant role in how the province's internationally lauded Places to Grow Act is implemented. The act is an attempt to contain urban sprawl by promoting intensification and growth in already built-up urban areas in the Golden Horseshoe.

The OMB ruling marks the end of a decade-long battle by town planners and activist-turned-politicians such as Burton, who fought to ensure the proposed development would adhere to the planning principles of "new urbanism," particularly in being more transit- and pedestrian-friendly.

"This is a wonderful day when you think of the 10 years worth of work that so many people have put in to create this green day," Burton said yesterday.

"Clearly, times have changed and it's time for developers to get with the action," Rick Smith, executive director of the activist group Environmental Defence told the Star. "There has been a sea change (in planning principles) with the advent of the Greenbelt."

The town has won a series of successive, hard-fought victories over developers who initially tried to fight the Natural Heritage System idea of planning at the OMB a few years ago and then abandoned the battle.

Most of the developers settled with the town in August, but a handful continued to fight, asserting their right to develop lands the plan had designated for green space.

"It's in perfect time with what the public thinks," Burton said of the OMB decision. "The public today demands and expects green planning."

He said the town began its "systems-based" idea for planning long before the provincial Greenbelt legislation came into being.

Town officials have always emphasized that the planned system of linked open spaces, woods and wildlife corridors, along water systems such as Bronte Creek and Sixteen Mile Creek and their tributaries, preserves an area 20 per cent bigger than New York's Central Park, bigger also than Vancouver's Stanley Park and almost double the size of Toronto's High Park.

Until now, the notion of "linked natural heritage" corridors has typically been an afterthought in planning GTA developments – or at least secondary to the goal of putting in as many housing units as possible.

Smith said the ruling sends a message to other municipalities that linked-systems planning is here to stay.

"The board finds that in setting policies and boundaries in this Secondary Plan, the Town has done an admirable job of balancing the need to provide land to accommodate (provincially) mandated growth with the equally important need to maintain a vital, healthy natural heritage system," OMB vice-chair Susan Campbell wrote in the decision.

She called the town policy a "superior and forward-looking method of protecting the province's natural heritage."

Burton said the impact would be felt in places like Seaton, in north Pickering, because planners from the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing helped Oakville in its fight to preserve the Natural Heritage System corridors.

As in north Oakville, plans for Seaton would set aside significantly larger amounts of green space along river valleys and woodlot corridors.
 
This isn't exactly "Greenbelt", rather Natural Heritage Systems within the urban areas. More and more secondary plans are incorporating NHS to protect the corridors from development, and that of course, is a good thing.

Mods - more appropriate title is neccesary
 
How's that for a new title?

Anyway, this is very good news, and will have ramifications for developments all over the GTA and surrounding it, on both sides of the Greenbelt.

Next I'd like to see us get some king of Forest Preserve system like those in the Chicagoland area, to add more properties to the various conservation lands owned by the TRCA, etc.

42
 
Well I wouldn't say that the North Oakville development plan is consistent with "new urbanism" principles or even close to that of the intensification doctrine of the Ontario Government, this news is great. And as the article points out, it is great because of the effect it will have in precedent-setting for other inner-ring suburbs (and outer-ring) in the greater golden horseshoe. Ontario is confronted with a serious urban containment problem.

Developers refuse to be told that they have to adapt to new political and public pressures to intensify and think different about suburban growth. This OMB ruling (I'm shocked that the OMB got something right for once) is critical. It surely paints developers into a corner where they can no longer seriously consider disobeying the Place to Grow Act, Growth Plan, Greenbelt legislation and intensificaiton targets.

North Oakville will be much like Markham or Brampton or even current south-of-highway5(dundas st) Oakville. The only difference is that the total land will be 40% intensified because part of that development site is protected from development. And while single-cookie-cutter homes, demi-detached or carriage house-style lots may be enough to satisfy the growth plan's 40% intensification target they do not prevent sprawl. It is a minor victory; a baby step. Even if it is in the right direction I doubt we'll see serious changes to the way developments in the suburbs are handled until the urban boundary is reached and the greenbelt is seriously challenged.

Based on the way cities like Oakville, Burlington, Pickering and Markham are developing, the size of unprotected developable land within the urban boundary is shrinking. And as these borders are reached, some of the mature developments in these communities will be facing a second or third development cycle. Hopefully by then, aided by transit and other infrastructure investments, we'll start to see serious intensification along selected and appropriate suburban nodes and corridors.
 
Remember that the McGuinty government reformed the OMB. This is no longer the bad old board that made such infuriating decisions, so we sould expect a lot more where this came from.
 
This OMB ruling (I'm shocked that the OMB got something right for once) is critical. It surely paints developers into a corner where they can no longer seriously consider disobeying the Place to Grow Act, Growth Plan, Greenbelt legislation and intensificaiton targets.

I have sat through numerous Council meetings and numerous OMB hearings, and I can tell you with no exageration that the OMB has always paid far more heed to the PPS, and more recently to Places to Grow, than municipal Councils.
 
^ And that's exact;y why the OMB is so crucial to the planning process in Ontario. And important check/balance against politicians who care more about their own agendas and vocal ratepayers then the PPS, growth plan or even their own municipal O.P.'s and zoning by-laws.

It is unfortunate that so many people have been swayed against the OMB by unfair media reporting and ratepayers/politicians who blast the OMB because they can't have complete control over growth (or in most cases preventing any growth). The OMB is the body that ensures laws are actually followed and planning evidence is taken into account when decisions are made.
 
It is unfortunate that so many people have been swayed against the OMB by unfair media reporting and ratepayers/politicians who blast the OMB because they can't have complete control over growth (or in most cases preventing any growth). The OMB is the body that ensures laws are actually followed and planning evidence is taken into account when decisions are made.

Ok, I will admit that the OMB may not be the big bad monster I characterized but your last sentence is a bit much. Just ask the planners and former Mayor of Burlington if the OMB actually cares about good planning policies. Wal-Mart is on its way to prime-intensificaiton land beside the Burlington GO station.

I hope that the OMB makes more decisions like this Oakville case and never, ever is bullied by developers and coward former MPPs to relive the Burlington Wal-Mart disaster again.
 
IMO i've always had two ways to look at the OMB.
The first is that the OMB is great in suburban areas because it squashes short-sighted decisions by politicians who are on the side of NIMBYs due to fear of losing the next election.
The second is that the OMB is horrible in more urban areas when they may look more towards developer interests instead of community interest.

"Good Planning" is very complex in urban areas. In suburban areas it's very cut and dry.
 
299 I'm not sure I agree with your argument. I'm no OMB champion but frankly I do not have universal regard for the decision-makers in City of Toronto wards either.

"..it squashes short-sighted decisions by politicians who are on the side of NIMBYs due to fear of losing the next election."

This could be equally true downtown as in the suburbs or exburbs.
 
Ok, I will admit that the OMB may not be the big bad monster I characterized but your last sentence is a bit much. Just ask the planners and former Mayor of Burlington if the OMB actually cares about good planning policies. Wal-Mart is on its way to prime-intensificaiton land beside the Burlington GO station.

I hope that the OMB makes more decisions like this Oakville case and never, ever is bullied by developers and coward former MPPs to relive the Burlington Wal-Mart disaster again.

The Burlington Wal-Mart is an example of why we need the OMB. The lands were designated mixed-use retail, which contemplated low density retail. It's tough for the City of Burlington to huff and puff when its own Official Plan provided for this type of development. City planning staff wrote a report recommending approval of the Wal-Mart application (Wal-Mart needed one siginificant amendment to the planning instruments (a removal of the unit size cap))! There was nothing stopping smaller big box users, such as Home Outfitters, from locating on the site as-of-right.

Burlington's attempt to use an interim-control-by-law was a debacle (both at the OMB and before the courts), and I understand that its evidence at the OMB as to the intensification potential of the lands was underwhelming.
 
IMO i've always had two ways to look at the OMB.
The first is that the OMB is great in suburban areas because it squashes short-sighted decisions by politicians who are on the side of NIMBYs due to fear of losing the next election.
The second is that the OMB is horrible in more urban areas when they may look more towards developer interests instead of community interest.

"Good Planning" is very complex in urban areas. In suburban areas it's very cut and dry.

Have to agree with TrickyRicky on this one. Suburban development is hardly cut and dry -- the environmental and engineering issues alone are enough to make your head spin. And although good planning can be very complex, in both an urban and suburban context, the OMB is the only place where all the reports actually get read and considered. The OMB is not perfect by any means. But most of the time it gets planning decisions right, which is more than I could say for most municipalities.

The one area where the OMB used to come up short was with urban boundary expansions -- it just wasn't equipped to look at the large picture in the manner that was necessary (neither, however, were most local municipalities). Now that appeals of urban boundary expansions are no longer permitted, and the Province has stepped in to play a much larger role in "big picture" planning, this is no longer an issue.
 

Back
Top