Case Law, Archaeology - A. O. PC. 2005.9.13

. FLINT. (2005). CA. OMB. PC. 2005. 09.13. Zachary Prince. Plan 414-Summer 2013On September 13, 2005 Landco Developments Ltd. appealed to the Ontario municipal Board (OMB) under subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, regarding the lands of 19 Tennessee Avenue, Port Colborne. Because this is an example of an appeal case, based on the previous decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Port Colborne, the plaintiff is Landco Developments while the defendant is the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Colborne. Landco Developments owns three residential lots in the City of Colborne, in 2003 and again in 2004 approval was given to severances on the east and west side of the original lot. The original house structure still remains in the centre lot and has no heritage designation, despite the area\’s history. Large lots, mature trees, and custom designed homes of varying ages characterize the streetscape in this area although the area is not a Heritage Conservation District, a neighbour requested a heritage designation for the home of 19 Tennessee Avenue but is not a designated heritage structure. The unique aspect of these lots is the presence of an aboriginal burial ground, which extends the entire frontage of the west lot.This appeal case is for the approval to sever a narrow triangular-shaped 0.06-hectare parcel of land from the centre lot to provide room to construct a driveway that is otherwise prevented by the burial grounds. The Committee of Adjustment of City of Colborne denied the original application due to the change that would occur to the streetscape. The issues raised by the City of Colborne include providing a buffer if a new house is built on the west lot to reduce the impact to neighbours\’ views. The City of Colborne also introduced the importance of cultural heritage landscaping due to the configuration of houses in this district; new houses would take away from the character of the original streetscape. Another aspect of the property that is discussed is the possibility of the presence of nickel, which would require remediation of the land. The last issue brought forth by the City of Colborne is that the lot meets by-law requirements in terms of access to the property without requiring the severance.The criteria that the Board used in determining the consent of the application can be found in section 51(24) of the Planning Act. The decision in this case is to approve the severance because the case regards changes to an existing driveway to avoid building on an Aboriginal burial ground despite the potential for new development in the future. Due to the presence of the burial ground there is a need for on-site access that is beyond the by-law standards and the presence of the burial grounds and mature trees will obscure the driveway. There are a number of conditions that impact the requested provisional consent related to development impacts on the natural environment. The first condition is for the City of Colborne to establish the most suitable building envelope to build a new house due to an irregular high water mark. The second regards the preservation of the burial ground and its importance to the streetscape as well as the need for the development agreement to include procedures to protect this heritage resource. Finally the last condition is to provide a landscape buffer to the house immediately to the west if a new house on the west lot is to be built.This is a case where the cultural heritage landscape is used as a tactic to prevent development in an area, although the area has heritage value, the property may never have been designated or recognized if a development was not proposed. Although the importance of heritage in this area is prominent there has been no designations to the original structure or as a Heritage Conservation District, if either one of these heritage tools were implemented the outcome could be very different. Since the OMB is an administrative body of the Province of Ontario previous decisions of the OMB are not binding and the role of the OMB is to provide indifferent decisions that are based on City documents and the Planning Act. In this case the decision is based on the interpretation of the City of Colborne Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statement and represents good planning.

Plan 414 Zachary Prince -\­J. FLINT. (2005). CA. OMB. PC. 2005. 09.13.On September 13, 2005 Landco Developments Ltd. appealed to the Ontario municipal Board (OMB) under subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, regarding the lands of 19 Tennessee Avenue, Port Colborne. Because this is an example of an appeal case, based on the previous decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Port Colborne, the plaintiff is Landco Developments while the defendant is the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Colborne.Landco Developments owns three residential lots in the City of Colborne, in 2003 and again in 2004 approval was given to severances on the east and west side of the original lot. The original house structure still remains in the centre lot and has no heritage designation, despite the area\’s history. Large lots, mature trees, and custom designed homes of varying ages characterize the streetscape in this area although the area is not a Heritage Conservation District, a neighbour requested a heritage designation for the home of 19 Tennessee Avenue but is not a designated heritage structure. The unique aspect of these lots is the presence of an aboriginal burial ground, which extends the entire frontage of the west lot.This appeal case is for the approval to sever a narrow triangular-\­-shaped 0.06-\­-hectare parcel of land from the centre lot to provide room to construct a driveway that is otherwise prevented by the burial grounds. The Committee of Adjustment of City of Colborne denied the original application due to the change that would occur to the streetscape.The issues raised by the City of Colborne include providing a buffer if a new house is built on the west lot to reduce the impact to neighbours\’ views. The City of Colborne also introduced the importance of cultural heritage landscaping due to the configuration of houses in this district; new houses would take away from the character of the original streetscape. Another aspect of the property that is discussed is the possibility of the presence of nickel, which would require remediation of the land. The last issue brought forth by the City of Colborne is that the lot meets by-\­-law requirements in terms of access to the property withoutrequiring the severance.Annotation Assignment Plan 414 Zachary Prince -\­- 203734622The criteria that the Board used in determining the consent of the applicationcan be found in section 51(24) of the Planning Act. The decision in this case is to approve the severance because the case regards changes to an existing driveway to avoid building on an Aboriginal burial ground despite the potential for new development in the future. Due to the presence of the burial ground there is a need for on-\­-site access that is beyond the by-\­-law standards and the presence of the burial grounds and mature trees will obscure the driveway. There are a number of conditions that impact the requested provisional consent related to development impacts on the natural environment. The first condition is for the City of Colborne to establish the most suitable building envelope to build a new house due to an irregular high water mark. The second regards the preservation of the burial ground and its importance to the streetscape as well as the need for the development agreement to include procedures to protect this heritage resource. Finally the last condition is to provide a landscape buffer to the house immediately to the west if a new house on the west lot is to be built.This is a case where the cultural heritage landscape is used as a tactic to prevent development in an area, although the area has heritage value, the property may never have been designated or recognized if a development was not proposed. Although the importance of heritage in this area is prominent there has been no designations to the original structure or as a Heritage Conservation District, if either one of these heritage tools were implemented the outcome could be very different.Since the OMB is an administrative body of the Province of Ontario previousdecisions of the OMB are not binding and the role of the OMB is to provide indifferent decisions that are based on City documents and the Planning Act. In this case the decision is based on the interpretation of the City of Colborne Official Plan,Provincial Policy Statement and represents good planning.
\