Who sold the Millcroft land to who and what did they pay?

News 100 blueBy Staff

March 8th, 2020



The public record indicates that:

Gord Buck, developer “ARGO Land Development (Argo (Millcroft) Limited)” paid $5M to Edward Liptay President “Millcroft Golf Club (2079610 Ontario Ltd.)” for 131.80 acres on January 29, 2020 for a 50% interest in the land.

$3M cash with a $2M vtb mortgage for two years at 0%.

Millcroft golf course

Millcroft: A large well established community built around a golf course.

Our source asked: “Does Gord Buck lives in the Millcroft neighbourhood?”

“This is going to be an interesting exercise in watching the threat of potential land development unfold and the impacts on the neighbouring housing backing onto the golf course; it is unlikely that there will be any new housing built on the golf course lands if evidenced alone by the purchase price; at the very least, this will be one of the most heated fights to watch and how the local Councillor gets killed. Those people who are directly affected are going to lose their minds.

“There may potentially be something else going on here.

“Also, not sure if the City missed this situation during the Official Plan review process; must check and see what the proposed OP designation is, not the zoning.”

The source is a professional with deep knowledge on land assembly. For personal and professional reasons we are withholding the name of the source of the information.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments to Who sold the Millcroft land to whom and what did they pay?

  • Alfred

    Penny. I heard and read that the tab to date for legals and other fees has surpassed the 9 million dollar mark to be paid by the tax payers of Oakville. For the fight against Glen Abbey being developed.

  • Steve Holman

    I assume there is no development plan submitted, so there could be no official plan issues – it is perfectly legal to convey land from a seller to a buyer, nothing for the city to “miss”. Not sure why the counselor will be “killed” here, unless he was somehow involved in the transaction.

  • Chris Ariens

    Zoning for the site is O1. So they will need to seek approval to amend the zoning.
    The official Plan: a little more grey. The map in Schedule ‘B’ shows that some of the lands are designated as Major Parks and Open Space, including the segment facing Upper Middle Road.

    Other portions, including the section facing Dundas Street on the other side of the hydro corridor: the current maintenance shed, where the developer has proposed a 6 story building, are designated as medium-density residential. So, depending on the number of units proposed, it’s possible that at least that portion of the development will conform with the current OP. It would conform with the new OP, which removes a reference to a specific level of density on the site.

    The new OP is pretty clear about the value of Major Parks and Open Space. Section 2.3.5 reads:

    a) Lands identified as Natural Heritage System, Major Parks and Open Space,
    include the City’s Natural Heritage System and lands designated for Major
    Parks and Open Space. Together they are essential components of a healthy
    and sustainable urban area, and are intended to be protected in accordance
    with the policies of this Plan.

    b) The Natural Heritage System is made up of natural heritage features and
    areas, such as woodlands and wetlands, shorelines, enhancements and
    buffers, and the linkages and inter-relationships among them, and with the
    surrounding landscape. Major Parks and Open Space includes Community
    Parks, City Parks and other public and private open space lands.

    The new OP shows the small triangle on the other side of the hydro corridor as “residential area” which is included in “developed area outside delineated built boundary”. It is also along a frequent transit corridor (Dundas St.)

    I think as a result, the 6 story building has a much better chance of getting through LPAT than does redesignating portions of the parks and open space land as residential. However, if they don’t get the open space lands redesignated, there may also be pressure for the buyer to seek to recoup their costs by going higher on the portion that is designated residential.

  • Penny Hersh

    I find it interesting that the residents of the Millcroft neighbourhood are fighting to save the green space around their homes. I have to wonder if they were as interested in saving the waterfront in Ward 2?

    The waterfront which is a natural resource, has been greatly impacted by the existing and proposed intensification developments for this area.

    I am not a golfer, but have read that interest in golfing has waned ( perhaps the cost to join a private club and pay dues is more than most people are prepared to do). Many companies paid for their executives to belong to these clubs, as a cost of doing business.

    Things seem to have changed and many young entrepreneurs don’t seem to feel that golf is the way to conduct business. Look what is happening in Oakville with Glen Abbey and will probably continue as owners of golf clubs try to recoup these loses.

    “in Oakville where council is fighting the development of Glen Abby Golf Course. I’m sure the Town has spent 100’s of thousands already on that issue alone. They have lost every injunction they have put on the developer so far and will not win the war”.

    The above is an interesting comment, perhaps one that should be taken seriously by the Millcroft Group. If Oakville loses, it will set a precedent for any other golf course looking to do the same thing.