Participant Statement May 14, 2021 Oakville, ON Local Planning Appeal Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto, ON M5G 1E5 Attention: Mr. Jason C. Kwan, Case Coordinator/Planner, [email protected] | 437-231-5651 Re: LPAT Case #s: PL171084, PL180158, PL180580, MM180022 and MM170004. Dear Jason Kwan, Mark Flowers, Kyle Gossen, Samantha Lampert, Robert Howe, Catherine Lyons, Nadia Chandra, Isaac Tang, Katie Butler, Konstantine Stavrakos, Rachel McPherson Duncan, Denise Baker and Raj Kehar, I fully and wholeheartedly support the Town of Oakville in its fight to preserve world-famous, iconic, Glen Abbey Golf Course – Home of the Canadian Open (30 of them), Jack Nicklaus’ first solo design of 410 in 45 countries, Canada’s first, and one of North America’s first hub-and-spoke golf courses, built for an emerging spectator sport. We, who live here, call Glen Abbey “The Heart of Oakville” because it is a beautiful, urban greenspace; and heritage landmark, that is integral to our Town’s identity, health and wellbeing. In fact, Glen Abbey is also the name of the planned Oakville community built around the golf course, the community where I live and have lived for over 30 years. I hope this LPAT hearing sets a precedent so NEVER AGAIN do “the people” of any Ontario municipality waste valuable time (5 years and counting!) and resources including $9 million+ taxpayer dollars (Jill Gowland’s Freedom of Information Act request, as cited in David Lea’s article, Town of Oakville’s bill for Glen Abbey fight now approaching $9 million: Oakville Mayor Rob Burton says rules of town’s official plan must be defended, Oakville Beaver and Toronto Star, March 15 and 18, 2019) to prevent a developer who does not live in their community from flitting in and out to DESTROY HERITAGE PROPERTY considered precious and irreplaceable … PRICELESS … by the community … for (I can think of no other reasons than) PERSONAL PROFIT and GREED. It astounds me that the fate of Glen Abbey Golf Course – designated a Heritage Urban Landscape under the Ontario Heritage Act and a significant urban green space, the value of which the world (including insurance companies) is just beginning to understand in addressing Climate Change and, yes, continued human existence – will be decided by a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), based strictly on technical planning issues as defined by the Ontario Planning Act. If I read this section of the LPAT – Appeal Guide A (page 5) correctly, the LPAT is one tribunal in the Environment and Land Division of Tribunals (ELD), but it is NOT the Tribunal that adjudicates matters related to “environmental and heritage protection”: “What is the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)? The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) is an adjudicative tribunal that hears cases in relation to a range of municipal planning, financial and land matters. These include matters such as official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivision plans, - Participant - LPAT case #s: PL171084, PL180158, PL180580, MM180022, MM170004 1 of 7 consents and minor variances, land compensations, development charges, electoral ward boundaries, municipal finances, aggregate resources and other issues assigned by numerous Ontario statutes. LPAT is part of the Environment and Land Division (ELD) of Tribunals Ontario, a cluster of tribunals that adjudicate a wide variety of matters. The tribunals included in ELD adjudicate matters related to land use planning, environmental and heritage protection, property assessment, land valuation and other matters.” Heritage doesn’t seem to matter. Ironically, in its ScoreGolf Magazine ad (Spring 2017), even Clublink, capitalizes on the heritage of Glen Abbey Golf Course, the historic landmark it is bent on destroying; and speaks to its belief that its proposed development of 3,222 residential units, including 9 apartment buildings of 9-12 stories, plus 69,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and 107,000 square feet of office space, is already a “done deal” … back then. In fact, a sign on the Glen Abbey clubhouse in the ad reads: “MODEL HOMES NOW OPEN.” In my humble opinion, this ad exposes a sense of entitlement and utter disregard for history and the value of preservation for future generations, a disregard for provincially approved municipal growth plans, the environment and the health and wellbeing of the people living in the surrounding, mature neighbourhoods. In the ad, the words, “AFTER THE ABBEY” float over a bulldozed 18th hole (where Tiger Woods made an “impossible” 218 yard shot over water from a fairway bunker with a 6-iron, to win the 2000 Canadian Open and Triple Crown. Many regard it as Tiger’s greatest shot and one of the most spectacular in PGA Tour history.) A billboard appropriately reads: “LIVE WHERE LEGENDS HAVE WALKED” and a bulldozer stands before a field of large wood frame homes. It seems that the destruction of iconic Glen Abbey Golf Course is a trophy to be won; its redevelopment, the deserved spoils of the conqueror. But maybe that’s just me. From a land use planning and environmental perspective, the impact of this unplanned, unwanted development, which will destroy an increasingly rare 229-acre urban green space NOT designated as a growth centre, growth node nor growth corridor by the Livable Oakville Official Plan - a plan approved by Halton Region and the Province of Ontario - is unknown. Since the developer filed its first application in October 2015, the world has greater awareness of the negative impacts of environmental degradation on Climate Change events and humanity. For the first time, the world’s economic and defence experts are leading the conversation on Climate Action. Mark Carney, former Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, has recently been named the first UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. National Security Advisors the world over are urging their governments to take decisive climate action now … and they caution, now may be too late. It’s that serious, globally. Locally, the issues the proposed Glen Abbey redevelopment brings to Oakville, include but are not limited to: removal of habitat and home to wildlife and an endangered species; removal of 1200 mature and semi-mature carbon-sequestering trees; flooding; creation of new “flood plains” on residential property, which also negatively impacts property value (as I believe is the case with the Saw-Whet Golf Course redevelopment); increased traffic in an already busy area; and increased GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions, primarily, but not only from the increased number of vehicles – personal and commercial. - Participant - LPAT case #s: PL171084, PL180158, PL180580, MM180022, MM170004 2 of 7 Who pays for the new infrastructure now needed in an unplanned growth area, such as: additional roads (not sure where those will go), sewers, water treatment plants, etc.? My limited understanding is that Glen Abbey is not in a transportation corridor. There are no schools to support the development. Who pays for damage done? Is it the developer? Is it LPAT? Is it the Government of Ontario? Or is it, unbeknownst to them, Oakville taxpayers and Oakville residents? This redevelopment does not seem to benefit the Oakville community at all. It has recently come to my attention that the Ontario Provincial Government now has the power to save Glen Abbey by issuing a Ministerial Order (Bill 257, Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, Schedule 3, Planning Act, 2021 which gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing almost unchecked power) or by adding Glen Abbey Golf Course to Ontario’s Greenbelt, by virtue of its Cultural Heritage Landscape designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. (Allan Elgar, Oakville Regional and Town Councillor, Ward 4 – with additions). So why isn’t that happening? I have many concerns. I am concerned that this LPAT hearing is being held at a time when everyone in Ontario is rightly focused and preoccupied with the deadly COVID-19 pandemic, new variants of concern, 3rd and perhaps 4th wave, and that this “non-priority land use planning issue” will get lost. I am concerned that Participants’ voices, like mine, are muffled, as we no longer can speak at LPAT hearings; and are restricted to written statements, when previously, Participants were encouraged to speak at the hearing as it was considered more effective. I am concerned recent legislation (Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019) dilutes the powers endowed to communities, limits the scope of the Heritage Act, and puts the power squarely back in the hands of developers; and the impact that will have on the outcome of this hearing. I am concerned that LPAT is simply the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) clothing as many of the OMB rules and procedures are back, but the name is still LPAT. Is that to disguise the fact, that once again, developers have the advantage? I am concerned that 20 MPPs who had previously voted to replace the OMB with LPAT(Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, Schedule 1 - Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 - designed to give municipalities and “the people” more power in local land use planning), voted to put it back, virtually, the way it was, and that both new Oakville and Oakville North-Burlington MPPs, Stephen Crawford and Effie Triantafilopoulos, respectively, also voted IN FAVOUR! I am concerned that if the LPAT ruling favours the developer, the precedent would have broad-based implications and endanger every municipality. If it can happen to iconic, historic Glen Abbey Golf Course, the “jewel” of Oakville as MPP Triantafilopoulos calls it, a Cultural Heritage Landscape protected under the Ontario Heritage Act, then all municipalities are more vulnerable. - Participant - LPAT case #s: PL171084, PL180158, PL180580, MM180022, MM170004 3 of 7 I am concerned about how many more Oakville taxpayer dollars will be spent (in a pandemic) to fight a self-identified relentless billionaire, whom I believe is set on winning, whatever it takes.