By Claude & Parth on 2026-08-04, City: Oakville, View Transcript
The Heritage Oakville Advisory Committee discussed two main heritage matters: whether to recommend repeal of the heritage designation at 3175 Lakeshore Road West, and how to respond to unauthorized alterations at 65 Thomas Street in the Old Oakville Heritage Conservation District. Members also spent considerable time on process, including whether parts of the 65 Thomas Street application could be separated and the implications of a September 20 provincial deadline.
The committee considered an owner-initiated application to repeal the heritage designation for 3175 Lakeshore Road West, designated under Bylaw 2024-093.
Staff 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, according to Kristen. Staff also reported that "the heritage criteria and attributes identified in the 2024 designation bylaw remain substantially unchanged. No visible alterations or changes have occurred that would affect the property's cultural heritage value in the last two years."
Based on that review, staff recommended that council refuse the repeal request.
During discussion, Jason said he wanted to preserve the house's character, telling the committee: "I just want to listen more opinions and how to protect the culture of the this house... I like this style. I want to continue that. I want to repair that."
The committee then reviewed unauthorized work at 65 Thomas Street in the Old Oakville Heritage Conservation District.
Staff reported that 29 windows had been replaced, all with vinyl. In a staff summary read into the record, "The heritage permit application identifies 29 window replacements. 18 of which had originally been wood and the other amount the other windows had not been wood at the time of replacement. All new windows are vinyl. 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 inkind material wood."
Kristen added that staff were specifically recommending "replacing the 18 originally wood windows that are now vinyl back to wood windows because this was a loss of a heritage attribute."
The committee also discussed other exterior changes, including hardscaping, a parking area and a front door.
The owner's representative, Danielle BL, said asbestos was a major factor in the work undertaken at the property. "My client's health is first and foremost," she said. "We weren't planning on seeing that amount of asbestos throughout the property and all painted surfaces... we do have documentation stating that there is asbestos in all of painted surfaces. Therefore we advise that we um do a full replacement so that there were no further issues with asbestos."
Residents and heritage advocates focused on whether some of the changes conflicted with district rules. Jane Hawkrigg told the committee that "new parking areas within front yards are not permitted," and argued the new parking pad should not be approved and "should be removed."
Committee members discussed whether they could support some parts of the application while sending unresolved issues back for further review.
Jeff Knoll asked staff how that would affect the recommendation if the committee wanted to distinguish between the window replacements and the hardscaping changes, including the parking area shown in photographs submitted that day.
Town solicitor Mr. Pinland cautioned against trying to split the application after council acted on it. "I am concerned that the application is in front of you and it's for all of for the alterations and I'm not certain that there is a way of returning once the application is dealt with by council," he said.
Another option raised during debate was to defer the matter entirely so all issues could come back together, with timing shaped by the September 20 deadline.
In the end, the committee leaned toward deferral rather than trying to rewrite conditions during the meeting.
The committee agreed to defer the 65 Thomas Street matter so staff could return with further reporting on the unresolved issues, including hardscaping and the front door.
Participants explicitly identified in the discussion materials: