Home Care In Glen Abbey, ON

[jwplayer tb1ARdeq-9JtFt04J]

When it comes to golf courses, not every course can be Pine Valley. Or Cypress Point. Or Shinnecock Hills. Or Sand Hills. Or Pacific Dunes. Or any of the other top 100 courses on Golfweek’s Best Classic and Modern courses lists.

But it also doesn’t mean that if a course isn’t on one of those prestigious lists, it is a terrible course.

So when PGA Tour player Zac Blair received a bit of backlash for calling Glen Abbey Golf Club, the host for this week’s RBC Canadian Open, “um… OK,” he wasn’t just being honest. He was also being fair and accurate.

Yeah ummm it’s ok pic.twitter.com/YH5WVBpgfH

— the fried egg (@the_fried_egg) July 26, 2018

Blair didn’t call Glen Abbey bad. He didn’t say it was the worst courses he’s ever played. He just said it was OK, which means, by definition, “satisfactory but not exceptionally or especially good.”

According to Golfweek’s rating system, Blair is right.

In ranking all the Tour courses in 2017-18, Glen Abbey, a 1976 Jack Nicklaus design, slotted 36th out of the 55 courses with Golfweek ratings, at 6.28. To put into perspective, that’s almost a full point higher than No. 55 Keene Trace (5.43) yet more than three points lower than No. 1 Shinnecock Hills (9.37).

Back in 2016, the last time Golfweek did a ranking of modern courses in Canada, Glen Abbey ranked 32nd at 6.41. The top-rated course was Cabot Cliffs (8.47) while Deer Ridge Golf Club (6.17) was No. 40.

As far as we’re concerned, a rating in the 6s and ranking in the 30-40 range is “OK” – not great, but definitely not poor.

Glen Abbey has some unique holes, including the 17th, which features a kind of U-shaped green guarded heavily by bunkers. It also is great for spectator viewing, something Nicklaus has been known for when designing courses (think Muirfield Village), and tournament logistics.

And Glen Abbey can also claim some great moments in Canadian Open history, having now hosted it 30 times, the first time being 1977 when Lee Trevino won. Those moments include this one from Tiger Woods in 2000:

But from a purely architectural standpoint, Glen Abbey isn’t a juggernaut – or anything close. To be fair, most courses on Tour aren’t.

“Ninety percent of the time we play courses that strategically don’t make any sense, or they’re at best uninteresting,” Geoff Ogilvy told Golfweek earlier this year.

Added Blair in that same article: “We play four or five each year that are very solid. Most of the others are pretty weak, honestly.”

Now, discussing the merits of Glen Abbey right now can be a bit of a sore subject. The course’s future is uncertain as possible development on the property looms. The Canadian Open has also moved away from Glen Abbey indefinitely – maybe forever – as Hamilton Golf and Country Club, a Harry S. Colt design ranked fifth on Golfweek’s Best 2016 Canadian Classic Courses list at 7.36, will host its sixth Canadian Open next season. (Colt’s impressive portfolio includes Muirfield, Royal Portrush and Sunningdale.)

But to criticize Blair for being something everyone wants Tour pros to be – honest – is wrong. Plus, he did compliment the course’s conditioning.

“The course is in really good shape, which is always nice and that’s really all you can ask,” Blair said. “It’s going over to Hamilton next year, which sounds like a pretty neat spot, so I’m looking forward to it.”

Hamilton is certainly an improvement over Glen Abbey, but it won’t be in many people’s top 10s, either. Again, that’s not a bad thing. Because of many reasons, from distance limitations to lack of space for grandstands, the Tour can’t play every week at a classic gem (ex. try hosting a Tour event at Chicago Golf Club). Now, it would be nice to see more courses like Trinity Forest added to the rotation, but that’s a different issue.

We’re talking about a Tour pro being called out for being honest – and right.

So the next time when Blair or someone else calls an “OK” course just that, try not to take it personal. He’s not calling it Goat Track Downs or Divot Golf and Country Club.

Check out the best equipment you can buy: Best drivers for 2024 | Best irons for 2024 | Best putters for 2024 | Best golf balls for 2024

A judge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has struck down bylaws that designated a golf course as a cultural heritage property, under the Ontario Heritage Act.

A judge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has struck down bylaws that designated a golf course as a cultural heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

In Clublink v. Town of Oakville, 2018 ONSC 7395, Justice Edward Morgan found in favour of the owners of the course, Clublink Corporation ULC and Clublink Holdings Limited, and ruled that five bylaws enacted by the Corporation of the Town of Oakville concerning the Glen Abbey Golf Course should be quashed.

In a statement provided to Legal Feeds, Robert Visentin, senior vice president of ClubLink said: “We are reviewing the decision in detail, but we do believe it is consistent with our position all along, which is that these bylaws are not legal and represent a significant over-reach by the Town of Oakville.”

The judge also ruled against a resolution by the town council, who had green-lit a Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan for the course, which was designed by golf legend Jack Nicklaus. The intention by Clublink is to demolish the course and construct residential buildings at the property, including multiple apartment buildings, but the town has expressed opposition to this plan.

“[T]here is nothing in theOHA or otherwise in provincial legislation and policy that empowers a municipality to require a private business — whether it is a cemetery, a farm, or a golf course — to keep running as a business. The Conservation Plan for Glen Abbey stands alone in that regard,” said the ruling. “For the Impugned By-laws to ignore the economic impact on the property owner, and to effectively require a property owner not only to maintain its property but to stay in business, all for the benefit of other residents of the Town, is to reflect bad faith decision-making. And the community-spirited intentions of Town officials and council in enacting these measures provide no defense.”

The owners had presented multiple issues with the bylaws to the court.

“Clublink submits that the Impugned By-laws areultra vires the Town and are in conflict with provincial legislation that prohibits the enactment of by-laws addressing services and other things related to recreation and culture. Secondly, Clublink submits that the Town’s conscious disregard of the financial consequences of the Impugned by-laws, and the singling out of Glen Abbey in the enforcement of the Impugned By-laws, reflect the Town’s bad faith in enacting them,” said the ruling. “Thirdly, it is Clublink’s position that enactment of by-laws aimed specifically at its property, but drafted in general rather than specific language, has resulted in them being vague and unintelligible.”

Leo Longo, a senior partner at Aird and Berlis LLP in Toronto and certified specialist in municipal law, says it’s clear that the judge “felt that he had a pretty compelling case presented by Clublink that the city fell afoul of all three points on the challenge.”

“I think municipal lawyers would be interested in this in that Oakville lost on all three points, and they only needed to lose on one,” he says. “It’s like a trinity of bases for turning them down. One, they didn’t have the jurisdiction to do what they did, number two, they did it in bad faith, and number three, what they did was vague.”

In its legal efforts, the town told the court “it is following the letter of the Ontario Heritage Act and the [Municipal Act], and is implementing a cultural heritage strategy which it is legislatively mandated to pursue,” said the ruling.

“It states that Glen Abbey is one of some 30 properties that have been identified by it as having cultural heritage value, and denies that Clublink’s property has been singled out for different or biased treatment,” said the ruling. “Counsel for the Town describes the Impugned By-laws as procedural only, and argues that they were enacted to implement in an orderly way a cultural heritage scheme over which the Town already has statutory authority.”

Jane Courtemanche, a spokeswoman for the Town of Oakville, provided an email statement on the ruling saying that the town is “reviewing the decision.”

“[The town] will seek further direction from Council early in the new year, so it would be premature for us to comment at this time.”

Longo says the ruling against Oakville shouldn’t stop other municipalities in their efforts.

“I would say to municipalities that trying to designate a [cultural heritage landscape] is something that is attainable under the Heritage Act, and Oakville just went about it incorrectly,” he says. “[I] think municipalities should not be deterred if they truly have a cultural heritage landscape to utilize those provisions.”

Government, Projects

The battle to demolish the iconic Glen Abbey golf course has landed in court.

At the heart of the battle is whether the Town of Oakville can use the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) to designate the property as a “heritage landscape” and thus prevent the owner, ClubLink, from making any changes or redevelop it with 3,222 residences.

The existing historic structures, including stables and the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame and Museum in the historic RayDor Estate and long designated under the OHA, will remain but the fight is over whether the golf course itself can be designated under the act. If so, the question becomes whether a municipality can deny an application for demolition under Section 34.

Things have sliced into the rough, says Robert Visentin, senior vice-president of ClubLink, with lawyers involved on several fronts for both sides.

It’s similar to a battle being waged in Vaughan, Ont. over the Toronto Board of Trade course which is also being similarly blocked. It’s an issue raising concern by groups like the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), representing 1,500 member companies in the Greater Toronto Area home building, land development and professional renovation industry. The Oakville Chamber of Commerce has also expressed their opposition.

BILD says a bylaw passed in January opens the door for Oakville to define almost any geographical areas as a heritage landscape, severely impacting land owners from future development without much legal recourse.

ClubLink says the Glen Abbey course, built in 1978 and home to the Canadian Open, is no longer fit for the purpose because it is too small, doesn’t have enough parking and the course itself is not a high-quality design commensurate with international tournaments.

According to court documents filed this February, ClubLink initiated a plan in 2015 calling for a mix of residential, commercial and open space use, dedicating some 54 per cent of the land (approximately 124 acres) for the public.

In November 2016, ClubLink filed a redevelopment plan with detailed reports and supporting materials. However, the lawsuit says, Oakville improperly denied the application and demanded additional information.

ClubLink went to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) three times with mixed results but did win a ruling that the application was complete and should proceed. Still, Oakville dug in its heels and now ClubLink is heading back a fourth time.

Provincial politics has also entered into the fray with the Ontario Liberal government proclaiming Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act in April. It dismantles the OMB and replaces it with a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The ClubLink application was filed before December 2017 and will be heard by an LPAT under the OMB regime.

Concurrently, the town also designated the course as a “cultural heritage landscape” under Section 29 of the OHA.

Their assertion of a cultural landscape is pretty well anything they want to it be

— Robert Visentin

ClubLink

“The phrase cultural heritage landscape is not found in the OHA yet, it is being used to attempt to thwart development within Oakville’s built boundary,” ClubLink says.

While it’s found in the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, it generally refers to an area “modified by human activity and having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community.”

The intent was to cover “structures, spaces, archeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their inter-relationship such as villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance.”

Applying it to a golf course is beyond Oakville’s legal authority, the lawsuit claims, and a bylaw passed in January essentially supplants the municipality as the sole authority to direct how the property is managed right down to the tee locations.

“The bylaws were enacted in bad faith and for improper purpose,” says the lawsuit.

The town had initially gone to court last fall to block ClubLink’s application for demolition under Section 34 and the company counterclaimed to strike the designation and order the redevelopment plan to be accepted and processed.

The matter is due in court July 16 and 17.

“Their assertion of a cultural landscape is pretty well anything they want to it be, a main street, a vista, anything, it is limited only by geographic dimension,” Visentin says, noting the second court application was initiated in February 2018 to strike the broad powers council granted itself to designate a cultural heritage landscape.

Visentin says the fight is representative of a broader battle being waged by municipalities like Toronto to use heritage designations for a purpose they were never intended.

“This is a big deal and there’s also a third piece in that Halton Regional Council wants to designate 100,000 acres of white belt mostly in the Milton area,” he says, referring to the land between developed areas and designated greenbelt lands.