By Claude & Parth on 2026-08-04, City: Oakville, View Transcript
The Heritage Oakville Advisory Committee reviewed two main heritage matters: an owner-initiated application to repeal the heritage designation of 3175 Lakeshore Road West, and a heritage permit application related to unauthorized alterations at 65 Thomas Street in the Old Oakville Heritage Conservation District. The committee recommended that council keep the designation in place at 3175 Lakeshore Road West and deferred the 65 Thomas Street application to a later meeting for further staff review.
The committee reviewed an application to repeal the heritage designation for 3175 Lakeshore Road West, designated under Bylaw 2024-093. Heritage staff said, "The purpose of today's report and presentation is to receive committee feedback and recommendation for council regarding the owner-initiated repeal of the heritage designation bylaw for 3175 Lakeshore Road West." Staff also noted that "the heritage criteria and attributes identified in the 2024 designation bylaw remain substantially unchanged" and that "no visible alterations or changes have occurred that would affect the property's cultural heritage value in the last two years."
Committee members were also reminded that heritage designation does not block redevelopment outright. As Julia Raid said, "The report states that heritage designation does not prevent change or redevelopment, but ensures alterations are appropriately reviewed and that heritage value is independent of market value and maintenance."
Discussion on 3175 Lakeshore Road West included comments from the future owner about preserving the house and practical concerns about owning a designated property. Jason told the committee, "I just want to listen more opinions and how to protect the culture of this house," adding, "I like this style. I want to continue that. I want to repair that. My plans is want to live there the rest of my life."
Committee member Jerry pointed to available financial support, saying, "we have a granting process for gradual renovations that will give you up to $15,000 a year," and said staff could share that information with the owner.
The committee then reviewed a heritage permit application tied to work already completed without approval at 65 Thomas Street, at Thomas and William streets in the Old Oakville Heritage Conservation District. The discussion focused on replacement materials, window changes and whether some alterations complied with district rules.
Jane Haslett-Theall said, "I think it's appropriate for me to say that this is a frustrating process for neighbors, neighbors who work hard to try to comply with the Heritage District guidelines."
Staff said replacement windows required a heritage permit and that district rules favour repair over replacement. In staff's words: "The replacement would have required a heritage permit. The plan and guidelines requires protection and maintenance of historic wood windows and prefers repair over replacement. If replacement of wood windows is required, it should be replaced with an in-kind material wood. In accordance with the plan and guidelines, vinyl windows are not permitted in the district for new window installations."
The applicant's agent said the scope of replacement work was driven by hazardous materials found during construction. Danielle told the committee, "my client's health is first and foremost; we weren't planning on seeing that amount of asbestos throughout the property and all painted surfaces. Therefore, we advise that we do a full replacement so that there were no further issues with asbestos."
The homeowner, Steve Stoos, also spoke about family health circumstances, saying, "my wife Susanna was diagnosed with colon cancer."
Even so, committee members raised concerns about changing standards without a staff report. Councillor Jonathan McNeice said, "I agree with you. It's difficult to making up bylaws on the fly without a staff report in front of us and a little more legally defensible as well."
Residents also raised objections to a front-yard parking pad. Jane Hawkrig told the committee, "new parking areas within front yards are not permitted," and argued that the current view of the property from the southwest corner is now "a picture of parked cars."
Legal counsel said the committee could not split the application into separate pieces after it had been filed. Dennis Berlin said, "I am concerned that the application is in front of you and it's for all of the alterations and I'm not certain that there is a way of returning once the application is dealt with by council." Councillor Peter Longo summarized the advice this way: "the legal advice is no no you can't tear up the package into bits. It needs to go to council as one recommendation one application."
The committee ultimately deferred the matter so staff could report back on the parking pad and front door issues before the statutory deadline.
Committee members or councillors identified in the meeting materials or discussion:
Other officials and speakers identified in the discussion: