Oakville will appeal ruling on Glen Abbey
Town councillors fight on to save golf course lands from housing development
DAVID LEA Oakville’s town council is taking the fight to preserve Glen Abbey Golf Course to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Councillors voted unanimously Monday to proceed with an appeal of an Oct. 25 decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that stated Glen Abbey Golf Course owner ClubLink has the right to bring forward an application to demolish the renowned facility.
ClubLink is hoping to demolish the golf course, which regularly hosts the Canadian Open.
The company wants to build 3,222 residential units at the 1333 and 1313 Dorval Dr. site, including nine apartment buildings between nine and 12 storeys in height.
The plan would incorporate the existing RayDor Estate, the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame and Museum, and stables into the proposed development.
Town staff have said ClubLink’s plan is inappropriate for the Dorval Dr. location, noting it would essentially turn the Glen Abbey Golf Course into an unplanned growth area.
Council voted unanimously on Feb. 12 to reject ClubLink’s demolition application based on planning and heritage merits.
ClubLink attempted to appeal this decision to LPAT (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal), but the town argued ClubLink could not make this appeal following the town’s designation of Glen Abbey Golf Course under the Ontario Heritage Act last December.
Town lawyers say the golf course is considered a landscape.
ClubLink could only appeal the rejection of their demolition application under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, which would see the matter heard by the province’s Conservation Review Board.
This approach favoured the town because the review board’s recommendations are not binding and the ultimate decision on whether to permit the demolition application rests with the town.
ClubLink then appealed the matter to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and during a hearing July 16 and 17 in Toronto argued the golf course is not a landscape, but rather a constructed structure, and as such, the company has the right to appeal the demolition application to LPAT under Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
This route is preferred by ClubLink because in this scenario the decision would rest with LPAT and not the town.
On Oct. 25, Justice Edward Morgan sided with ClubLink, noting that, in his view, the golf course is a structure and therefore its demolition application can be appealed to LPAT.
“The evidence is that the golf course was constructed in accordance with Jack Nicklaus’ professional design.
“It is not raw land, and it is substantially more than a landscaped garden. As ClubLink points out, portions of the course have been renovated and rebuilt over time, and like all such constructions these features have a limited life,” Morgan said in his decision.
“Counsel for ClubLink emphasizes the evidence in the record of substantial irrigation infrastructure, subsurface drainage construction, earthwork spectator mounds or berms, artificial reservoir ponds, com- plex designed greens constructed in accordance with specific United States Golf Association standards, engineered bunkers, paved cart paths, etc.
“All of these features require installation, physical maintenance, periodic renovation, and elaborate construction. ClubLink submits that features that need to be constructed are structures that can be demolished.”
With the matter now before the Ontario Court of Appeal, ClubLink’s demolition application remains on hold.
A date for a hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal has yet to be set.
The golf course is a structure and therefore its demolition application can be appealed to LPAT