According to a press release of October 11, 2017 by the Town of Oakville regarding the rejection of the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application, ClubLink has decided to appeal the town's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). ClubLink is not appealing the heritage designation of Glen Abbey Golf Course.
“The town is not surprised that ClubLink has appealed Council’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board,” Mayor Rob Burton said. “The town is prepared to vigorously defend Council’s decision that ClubLink’s applications do not represent good planning for this site and are not consistent or in conformity with applicable provincial, regional and town policy.”
According to the Ministry of Ontario that looks after heritage, the last time the OMB overturned an intention to designation that they were aware of was 2005. However, until the OMB renders its final decision, the fate of the Glen Abbey Golf Course is still in play.
Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application by Clublink was rejected by councillors as they voted unanimously to support the staff report that recommended the rejection. This vote was after a marathon delegations spoke at Oakville's Town Hall. The vote was held on September 26, 2017. However, there are a few more steps before Glen Abbey is saved.
Notice to Designate Glen Abbey as a Cultural Heritage Landscape Approved
The Planning and Development regarding the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application meeting extended over two evenings starting at on Monday, September 26 2017 and due to the sheer volume of delegations was extended to Tuesday, September 27, 2017. In total the meeting lasted over 3.5 hours and heard from delegations both for an against the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application.
The vast majority of delegations did support the staff recommendation that the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application be rejected; however, there were several delegations that outlined reasons for the application to be accepted. One of those in support of the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application sited was that the public would have greater access to the green space, instead of just the Clublink Members and golfers.
The delegations that supported the staff report to reject the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application were extremely well informed and many of them based their positions on planning act. These were reiterated by the Mayor and councillors prior to the vote.
What makes Glen Abbey a Cultural Heritage Landscape
There are several more steps before the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application is truly settled.
Prior to the meeting, Clublink issued a press release outlining the reasons why the Town should approve the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application which was issued on September 25, 2017. Clublink's press release indicated that they would not fight the cultural heritage landscape designation of Glen Abbey Golf Course. That it was also proceeding with an application to demolish/remove the Golf Course and all of the buildings on the land according to Section 34 of the Heritage Act.
The following is regarding Section 34 of the Heritage Act.
Demolition or removal of structure
34. (1) No owner of property designated under section 29 shall demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality in which the property is situate and receives consent in writing to the demolition or removal. 2002, c. 18, Sched. F, s. 2 (18); 2005, c. 6, s. 22 (1).
Application
(1.1) An application made under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by any plans and set out any information the council may require. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6 (9).
Notice of receipt
(1.2) The council, on receipt of an application under subsection (1) together with any information it may require under subsection (1.1), shall serve a notice of receipt on the applicant. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6 (9).
Decision of council
(2) Within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the applicant under subsection (1.2) or within such longer period as is agreed upon by the owner and the council, the council, after consultation with its municipal heritage committee, if one is established,
(a) may,
(i) consent to the application,
(i.1) consent to the application, subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the council, or
(ii) refuse the application;
(b) shall give notice of its decision to the owner and to the Trust; and
(c) shall publish its decision in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality. 2002, c. 18, Sched. F, s. 2 (18); 2005, c. 6, ss. 1, 22 (2); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6 (10).
(3) Repealed: 2005, c. 6, s. 22 (3).
Deemed consent
(4) If the council fails to notify the owner under clause (2) (b) within the time period mentioned in subsection (2), the council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. 2002, c. 18, Sched. F, s. 2 (18).
Transition
(5) If, on or before the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, an owner of property designated under section 29 had applied to a municipality for consent to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property and no decision had been made by the council of the municipality as of that day,
(a) the council's decision shall be made in accordance with subsection (2), as amended by subsection 22 (2) of the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005; and
(b) subsections (5) and (7), as they read immediately before the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, do not apply if the council decides to refuse the application. 2005, c. 6, s. 22 (4).
Same
(6) If, on or before the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, an owner of property designated under section 29 had applied to a municipality for consent to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property and the council of the municipality had refused the application under subsection (2), then, even though 180 days had elapsed since the date of the council’s decision and the owner had complied with the requirements of clause (5) (b) or (7) (b), as they read immediately before that day,
(a) subsections (5) and (7), as they read immediately before the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, do not apply with respect to the refusal of the application; and
(b) the owner shall not demolish or remove the building or structure on the property. 2005, c. 6, s. 22 (4).
Same, exception
(7) Despite subsections (5) and (6), if, on the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, a situation described in subsection (6) existed and the owner of the property had not only prepared the property for the demolition or removal of a building or structure but was in the course of demolishing or removing the building or structure, then,
(a) subsections (5) and (7), as they read immediately before the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, continue to apply to the refusal of the application;
(b) the owner may continue the demolition or removal of the building or structure; and
(c) sections 34.1, 34.2 and 34.3, as they read immediately before the day the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2005 received Royal Assent, continue to apply to the application. 2005, c. 6, s. 22 (4).
(8) Repealed: 2005, c. 6, s. 22 (4).
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
The rejection of the Glen Abbey Redevelopment Application does not mean that this issue is over. When and if this demolition application is received by the town, a decision will have to be either approved or rejected. If it is rejected Clublink does have the ability to appeal the demolition rejection.
Town of Oakville - Complete Video of Meetings
Special Planning and Development Meeting September 26, 2017
Special Planning and Development Meeting September 27, 2017