For every thousand Oakville residents, there are at least 2.2 hectares of active parkland somewhere in the town.
For those who need a visual: one hectare is a square measuring 100 metres on all sides, or about the amount of space inside a 400-metre running track.
It's a ratio established several decades ago and one that town councillors seem inclined to maintain as they grapple with the future of parkland as Oakville builds out its remaining lands.
But a proposed new Parks Plan that will be considered by town council at its Sept. 6 meeting is getting pushback from developers.
Developers have always been required to provide land, or cash-in-lieu of land, to be used to establish parks. Through the decades, those lands and funds have built community and neighbourhood parks, as well as trails and open space areas across the town.
But recent changes to the provincial Planning Act require the town to approve a new plan and parkland dedication bylaw.
The change comes as the town moves away from suburban-style growth and toward higher-density urban-style towers in locations like Midtown Oakville, Palermo and Bronte Village.
Known as strategic growth areas (SGAs), those areas are expected to house thousands of new residents in mid- and high-rise developments.
It means parks in those areas will be unlike Oakville’s traditional green spaces, said Gabe Charles, the town’s director of planning, at council’s Aug. 9 meeting.
Developers argue that funding those spaces should also vary from the traditional approach.
$22,000 per unit “a barrier” to high-rise development
Oakville’s proposed new rules will require developers to pay $22,269 per unit as a cash-in-lieu of parkland fee if they can’t transfer land to the town.
The funds will be used to purchase land either in the area or elsewhere in the town to maintain the resident-to-parkland ratio.
In the case of Distrikt Development’s 1,750-unit proposed high-rise Cross Street development, that fee would amount to nearly $40 million – “more than the land is worth,” said lawyer Calvin Lantz, who represented the developer at town council’s Aug. 9 meeting.
Lantz said the proposed fees would act as a “significant barrier” to planned intensification.
“We cannot have the parkland bylaw as the tail wagging the dog of development. They have to work together,” he said. “It is inviting the province to get involved if the town of Oakville does not get this right.”
The proposed park dedication bylaw may be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
But Mayor Rob Burton challenged Lantz, as well as other developer representatives, to open their books and prove that the town’s proposal wouldn’t allow financially viable development.
Under the town’s plan, noted Burton, about 7.7 hectares of parkland would be created for the approximately 3,500 people living in a building with 1,750 units.
“If I follow your logic, 3,500 people would have next to no parkland,” he told Lantz. “That’s why I think it’s urgent that you demonstrate a financial necessity rather than just point with horror at how much the land is.”
Representatives from developers are urging the town to cap the cash-in-lieu payment amount. They also want the town to credit them for green space provided above underground features like parking garages or stormwater management tanks and for privately owned but publicly accessible areas.
“We have to find a way to do more with less because we’re running out of space,” said lawyer Ira Kagan, who spoke on behalf of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
Require a minimum amount of green space, urges resident
But councillors also heard from resident Wanda Crichton, whose comprehensive response to the 200-page Parks Plan was among the public responses included in the Aug. 9 meeting agenda.
“Parks are the lifeblood of our community,” she said. “They’re integral to the quality of life for our residents.”
She urged councillors to mandate a minimum amount of green space in the town’s high-density strategic growth areas to counteract the heat islands created by concrete-intensive development.
Crichton also said that fairness demands that council spend the money raised from cash-in-lieu of land payments in or near the areas where it was collected.
In response to the developer's recommendations, she expressed concerns about what would happen to privately-owned park spaces when repairs are needed, disputes arise, or bankruptcies occur.
“Parks should be public, period.”
Ward 3 councillor Janet Haslett-Theall also threw her support behind the need for green space and tree canopies within the strategic growth areas.
“Things like sliver parks are not parks – and they’re not a paradigm shift, they’re extended sidewalks,” she said. “I’m just challenging us to make sure we do not do less for those in the strategic growth areas than we would do in our own neighbourhoods.”
Mayor floats idea of new eco-park
According to the Parks Plan report, Oakville will face challenges maintaining the ratio of residents to parkland beyond 2031 as development extends to the town's boundaries.
Among the report's recommendations is the suggestion that the town purchase Bronte Provincial Park or local conservation area lands to help achieve the parkland ratio in future years.
Burton suggested another alternative, which would see the town purchase 2,100 acres (about 850 hectares) of land north of Highway 407. The lands in the northeast area of town are currently protected under either the provincial greenbelt, the Parkway West plan or as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).
“It’s a gigantic opportunity to layer on the additional protection of being town-owned park space,” said the mayor.
As part of a motion to receive the Parks Plan and draft bylaw, council agreed to ask town staff to consider the idea.
Final approval of the Parks Plan and parkland dedication bylaw is slated for council's Sept. 6 Planning and Development meeting.
Public comments on the plan can be provided via the online feedback form on this page.
Sept. 6 will also see the town consider a new Community Benefits Charge that may be levied against new high-density residential developments of five or more storeys with ten or more units to pay for capital costs required because of development.