By Pepper Parr
January 26, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON.
There just might be an opportunity for pilot private tree bylaw in the Roseland community.
Last week the Roseland residents met to learn what the city planning department was going to do with the recommendations made by the consultants who conducted the community character study that is now complete.
The character study done in Roseland was one of two the city had done. It wasn’t possible to arrive at any sense of consensus on the Indian Point community character study but there was much to work with in Roseland where residents resent developers buying up properties, clearing the land, demolishing a home and then seeking a variance at the Committee of Adjustment to sever the lot and build homes that many feel do not fit in with the look and feel of the community.
A tree close to 100 years of, `honoured`by the community was cut down. The property owner has plans to seek a severance of the property. Roseland residents furious that things like this are allowed to happen.
One of the issues is the cutting down of trees that are on private property. City council was not able to get a private tree bylaw passed during its last term of office. Mayor Rick Goldring was on for such a bylaw and there were several cogent, persuasive fact filled presentations made at the time but it wasn’t enough to get the four votes needed.
The Roseland residents might have created an opening for the Mayor who sat in on the meeting last week – and got more than an earful.
There was a superb opportunity for the Mayor to put forward his belief in the need for a private tree bylaw. He was given close to the last word during the meeting of residents and he made his typical comments; that he heard what they were saying and more yada, yada, yada. He did say a pilot tree bylaw was an intriguing idea. There was not even polite applause for the Mayor.
Jack Dennison, ward Councillor for the community then stood up and made his comments; thanking the planning staff and adding that it had been a productive meeting.
Nothing unhealthy looking about this tree.
Dianne Bonnell said “the level of residents’ frustration was palpable”, while another resident called the cutting down of trees an “absolute travesty” and left the room minutes later.
The residents at the meeting believed that the cutting down of 100 year old trees devalues the property of all the residents in the community and they are left feeling helpless. Some are beginning to move out of the community – they think the end of the Roseland they had chosen to live in was in sight.
What our Mayor could have done was this – told the community that he understood their frustration and that he was going to put a motion before council asking for a pilot private tree bylaw that would be restricted to the Roseland community and be in place for a number of years – three should do it.
The Mayor could have then turned to Councillor Dennison and asked him publicly if he would support such a motion.
But Rick Goldring doesn’t have that level of political chutzpah and for the next while majestic oak trees will be felled in the Roseland community.
It was a lost political opportunity for a Mayor who appears to have a tin ear when it comes to listening to the residents.
Related articles:
Council votes against a private tree bylaw.
Community survey doesn`t convince city council that private tree bylaw is needed.
You’re back Mr. Wonderful, where have you been? And what an interesting comment! If I didn’t know better I’d say you’ve been up at Peter’s cabana imbibing in the contents of his beer fridge. I’ve never been invited, but it better be a full size fridge for the 3 of us.
There is another way to help the concerned residents of Roseland. Eat a beaver, save a tree.
Hi Dianne. Just to set the record straight. I never would or said that you were dinosaurs.If your friends had kept quite while other people spoke you would have heard what I did say and that was, that based on todays development patterns and lot sizes being created. The big lots in Roseland are in fact dinosaurs.As far as a colleague of mine calling your houses tear down.I would never say that and since I went to and from the meeting by myself. I have no idea who you are talking about. But since you brought the topic up let me tell you my opinions on tear downs in Roseland. Some of the the houses in Roseland (a small few)are worth more as building lots than the existing house, hence the bulldozers. Back to the tree cutting by-law. In my opinion the attempt at a tree cutting by-law is a sham, along with the Character area study and all the other nonsense that has come out of this area. This is nothing more than a desperate effort to stop development that is mandated by the Provincial Government, in this area, by a small minority of the residence. Just to prove my point, a homeowner in Roseland tried to get a severance of his property. The City staff concluded we have reviewed the proposed severance in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Planning Act. The proposal will facilitate the creation of lots that are appropriate in size for low density residential development and are COMPATIBLE with existing lots in the immediate(all the lots on either side) vicinity. Now are you ready for this! Staff RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the severance Ouch! The Region stated the proposed severance is intended to facilitate infill and intensification within the Urban Area of Burlington. And yes Roseland is in the Urban Area. 7 other Regional and City Departments came to the same conclusion. Undeterred deciding to again turn on one of their own the Roseland gang with lawyer in tow showed up in force, a small minority of the Roseland residence. Not in our neighborhood was the cry. My guess is there will be 2 new shinny homes on these lots soon. So needy!
It is so convenient for a hired consultant to send a picture of a cut heritage tree and say how rotten tree the tree is. Of course, if we had the tree by-law, the rules of evidence would have come into play. The owner would produce a report from a qualified professional, the city staff would review it, and the need to cut down the this heritage tree would be objectively assessed – not based on here say evidence from with the one side. That’s how the big cities in the QEW corridor do it – like Toronto, Mississauga, and Oakville. Oh I forgot, we are Canada’s best medium sized city – time to st drinking the Koolaide on that one.
It is so convenient for a neighbour to send in a photo of a portion of a tree and state how healthy the tree is. The photo attached shows the entire tree which is totally hollow at the base. The neighbour who took this photo should send a note of thanks as this tree eventually would have fallen, possibly onto their home.
OMG Seems that your client has a real penchant for buying properties with dead or soon-to-be-dead trees. Isn’t this the guy who down all trees on Lakeshore, just south of Hart? The reverse Midas touch I guess – buy a tree and it turns to sawdust. Didn’tt the same thing happen to your other client’s properties on Lake by the school – sure is a lot of rot going around.
It’s always a shame when we need to legislate common sense. But when the financial stakes are high, ethics and a sense of community seem to take a back seat. Mature trees define the Roseland neighbourhood and most homeowners recognize and respect this. Should private property owners be subject to controls over what they can do with the trees on their own lot? I’d prefer not, but I am willing trade in some of my own rights in order to prevent someone with less sense of what defines Roseland from altering permanently the streetscape. This is the very essence of what it means to be a part of a community – forgoing some of your personal agenda for the greater good. However, since not everyone can play nicely within this pollyannish framework, we need our local government to act as the adjudicator. Let’s not blame developers for this – Roseland homeowners are complicit when they begin looking to move out of the neighbourhood that raised their children and clear cut their lots in advance of a developer’s deal and application for variance/severance. Time to level the playing field and a bylaw like this is a step in the right direction.
Sorry the house price had an extra zero Should read $1,000,000
Sorry the house price had an extra zero Should read $1,000,000
Hi Mike sorry about CAPS, computer problems. I am not very handy with a computer.Pretty good with calculator though,and let me see if I can substantiate my opinions.Built a home in Oakville for a family who bought a $1,000,0000 home demolished it and hoped to build a large home on a large lot similar to a lot in Roseland. Surrounded by other large homes where the owners also demolished and rebuild. Big lots mean big homes or so most people think.This family went through a tree cutting by-law process which Oakville has. Between City fees, arborist fees,property taxes, and carrying cost(mortgage)because of a 5 month delay because of the time to process the application. It cost them well in excess of $12,000 and they still got to cut all the trees they wanted. It forced them to build through winter making conditions for the workers much more dangerous.This process was a nightmare and probably why most people will have nothing do with this kind of by-law, unless you live in a condo and have no trees. Site plan application fees and carrying costs(property taxes and mortgage payments) involved in a process that can take up to a year where it used to take 10 days can now cost upward of $25,000 for no good reason. Doing the math 100 homes a year (stats provided by planning staff) times 5 years = 500 homes. We will use $20,000 per home, my cat can substantiate that number.That would equate to $10,000,000 getting sucked out of the pockets of the citizens of this community.Throw in all the costs to the taxpayers for all the studies this needy neighborhood initiates. As far as having plenty of trees the city arborist will confirm that the numbers total in the millions. All this info. Was made available for council and the general public and is the reason council was not concerned with the cutting of a few trees in the overall scheme of things and realized not everyone wants to live in the forest and wisely chose to respect peoples rights to their own property and not to expose the citizens and put them through the nightmare process I described earlier. Were you sleeping when all this was going on? Not a whole lot has changed since then,except more trees have been planted. I live in a special neighborhood and have built 8 homes here without all the drama. New neighbors are welcomed with fruit baskets not protests and law suits.While our neighborhood has Shoreacres Creek, ravine lots and Paletta Park where I can walk down to the lake or get chased by coyotes. Things the Roseland folks can only dream of.The only difference between the neighborhoods is that we do not consider ourselves SPECIAL, just the same as everyone else in Burlington. Mike if you had to watch a family wait 9 months for a building permit on a simple house, and see the stress paying for 2 houses does to you. I have to see this everyday and help people through this. I am unusually strident in my views because people should not be treated this way because of the policies initiated by a small percentage of people in Roseland. Most of the people in Roseland agree it should not take 9 months for a permit.
As a Board member of the Roseland Community Organization I can confirm that we have paid memberships for over 100 households, most with two members per home. This hardly is a “small percentage”.
The Development and Infrastructure Committee supported a direction that staff look into whether the city should conduct a character area study for the Shoreacres neighbourhood. Clearly not everyone in Shoreacres is happy.
You exhibit the same stridency you have exhibited at all Roseland Study meetings, including calling us dinosaurs. Your colleague stood up at a member and said that many of our homes are ‘tear-downs.’ Your disrespectful approach wins no one over to your point of view.
We are residents. These is our neighbourhood. It really is no one else’s concern if the residents of Roseland want an area-specific by-law to protect their tree canopy and inventory. If the rest of the City does not want one that is fine. This was a suggestion of the consultants and is something that the City is contemplating.
I had to take down a large diseased tree that was overhanging my neighbour’s driveway. I was saddened to do so, but the safety of my neighbours, their house and vehicles was the obvious choice. What we are discussing here is a different issue.
It is only fair to say that if I shared in the payment of some sort of neighbourhood character study, I have a say and may also have a concern, and so may other citizens of this city. Roseland is a neighbourhood of the city, not some sort of private and exclusive gated community.
Albert:
Thank you for your concern over my sleeping habits. I think that the best that can be said is that we agree to disagree. I believe that your statistics and assumptions are largely anecdotal extrapolations and strongly coloured by your business interest – your statistician cat notwithstanding.
Drowsy Mike
1) start with a ‘Developer Tree cutting bylaw” that restriction developers from clearing mature trees prior to submitting a site plan for a proposed development. This would included large scale developers and those building individual residents.
2) dead trees need to be removed on private property and this should not need a bylaw……..But this only applies to dead trees. An arborist from the city should come, at no cost to the home owner, and determine if the tree meets that criteria and then it should be. If it is on city property (boulevard) then the city pays for it. Hopefully the tree is harvested for any good wood and the rest is used for composting or firewood.
3) mature healthy trees on a private property should not be removed without a specific and justifiable reason………..we wish to expand this post-war bungalow and need the extra room for our 4 children. Seems reasonable. The cost of this process falls upon the individual wishing to expand.
VS: we wish to have a large skating rink and need to fell these 5 pristine maples………..seems unreasonable. The cost of this process falls upon the individual wishing a NHL team.
Once again, I disagree with Mr. Rusin. Trees, green space, foliage of any kind enhance a neighbourhood. Perhaps for some, they are a distraction but for the majority of civilized people they what helps to create a community. Let alone, they help revitalize our environment as nature C02 scrubbers and 02 producers.
I planted every single tree that exists on my property today, over a period of several years, after virtually clear cutting all of the old trees that were nearing the end of their life cycles to make room for an extensive pool development and pool cabana where I have a full size fridge to keep my beer cold in the summer, and play loud music while frolicking about. Nobody is going to tell me what to do on my property or with my property. I may have shed a tear for the 176 year old shag bark hickory that provided me with the joys of a thousand dollar annual tree maintenance cost and endless nuts falling onto my private oasis, and the three hundred pound healthy branch that almost killed my neighbour following a storm. But, now I have more sun pouring down on my beautiful lily gardens and shimmering pool water; a truly revitalized and perhaps even a more civilized environment.
I wonder why Mr. Rusin needs to insert his opinions into every subject? Election is over. Positioning yourself for another run? Given the last results and how many people you manage to offend with your extreme comments, I predict more of the same. Good to know people can replace trees with beer fridges. Given that you happily play loud music in your back yard, shows how much thought you give your neighbours and respect by-laws. The property rights argument is nonsense. Sorry to tell you that your property is already subject to by-laws, including but not limited to noise and fencing.
The extremism comes from those who wish to impose their moralistic alignment over others. I am merely an advocate for the protection and preservation and respect of private rights, for people like Albert. I also have a natural talent for the selection and growing of healthy trees and an interest in the city’s tree population and canopy.
The nonsense regarding this issues is the over exaggeration of clear cutting activities resulting in the devaluation of overpriced real estate, the world coming to an end, and the mass exodus of people from roseland because somebody cuts down a tree to make way for a nice and shiny new house. That is probably what the mayor is having difficulty with; how to respond to the unfounded grievances of a few.
What do you think was growing in the ground prior to where your house currently sits, a mushroom?
Small correction. I did not say “culpable frustration”; I said the level of residents’ frustration was palpable.
A TREE CUTTING BY-LAW WAS TURNED DOWN BY THIS DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED COUNCIL FOR A VARIETY OF GOOD REASONS. 1.PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.2. THE COST TO THE HOME OWNER IN TERMS OF COSTS FOR ARBORIST REPORTS, APPROVAL FEES.BURLINGTON HAS ONE OF THE SLOWEST MOST ONEROUS AND COSTLY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES IN CANADA IN LARGE PART THANKS TO THE LOBBYING OF THE RESIDENCE OF ROSELAND .IT COST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MORE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A HOME IN BURLINGTON THAN THE ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS. THE TREE CUTTING PROCESS ALONE COULD COST A HOME OWNER UPWARD OF $10,000 OR MORE.3.THE FACT IS THAT THERE ARE MORE TREES IN BURLINGTON NOW THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY.THE NUMBER OF TREES ARE GOING UP NOT DOWN.AS MANY WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO STOP ANY DEVELOPMENT IN ROSELAND ALONG WITH THE CHARACTER STUDIES AND ALL THE REST OF THE NONSENSE COMING OUT OF THE THIS AREA.THIS ROSELAND GROUP HAS COST THIS CITY AND BUSINESSES SUCKING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES AND EXTRA BUSINESS COSTS AND LOSS OF BUSINESS. MAY I SUGGEST YOU GIVE THE RESIDENCE ALL THE INFO. COSTS,LENGTH OF TIME TO PROCESS AND A COPY OF THE BY-LAW AND IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH 51% OF THE PEOPLE TO AGREE TO THIS THEN AND ONLY THEN SHOULD A BY LAW BE CONSIDERED. EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME THE 30 OR 40 PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP AT THESE MEETING DO NOT REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF MOST.I USUALLY FIND THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY.GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR SIGNATURES.
Interesting statistics – where do they come from Albert?? Can’t think of any current source on which you could have drawn. Any reason for the CAPS, other than you like to shout your unsubstantiated opinions.
I find that those that take issue with Roseland, and I am not a current resident, are generally unusually strident in their views and really don’t appreciate what makes a special neighbourhood.
The issue of trees is not simply about property value. It is a major environmental issue as well. Trees also provide shade, cooling, privacy and an aesthetic value, all of which are immeasurable. And where exactly would one find supporting residence Mr. Rusin? Not everything has a tangible element to measure. Part of the allure of Roseland is the trees, so I disagree with you entirely in any event. It is noted that you, who are a professional realtor, thinks that Roseland is overvalued. This is a character neighbourhood and while some of the infill and renovations have been respectful of the established nature of the community, others have not. Tree removal of dead or dying trees is obviously acceptable. Understand the issue here: we are discussing the unnecessary and wanton removal of trees. We live here and have the right to defend this essential characteristic. The tree canopy is part of that. Pre-emptively removing trees which are over two hundred years old in order to then submit a simplified application for severance, is a fundamental avoidance of future responsibility. The Mayor and Marianne Meed-Ward publicly supported a tree by-law and that is appreciated by the community. And lastly, the cutting down of a tree and replacing it “with a bunch of new ones” is a ridiculous notion. You cannot replace a 250 year old tree which is over 3 feet in diameter with others which are 3 inches in diameter, other than patiently waiting another 248 years.
Meant to say supporting evidence, not residence!
Just to keep everything in perspective the first tree shown in your article was totally hollow. We have the photos and report. In some cases tree cutting is a necessity. This tree removal did the community a huge favor. There is no one in this community that would not have taken the same action.
I believe that all trees in these older communities should be assessed. Heritage trees recently fell in downtown Burlington and in the Indian Road community narrowly missing homes and the driving public. Lets not save a tree for the sake of saving a tree it can be a dangerous practise.
I sure this goes somewhere. So sad to see trees felled to make way for new builds that are too big for the surrounding area.
It would be helpful if the residents provided evidence supporting their assertion that the cutting down of trees devalues the property of all the residents of the community. The reverse is likely to be found; that new development enhances the value of older properties as well as the neighbourhood as a whole. That’s exactly what has taken place in the Indian Point neighbourhood, ever since a few severances have taken place with new houses being built.
If worried about value, then more concern should be raised about what the effects of the greater economic condition may have on the overvalued Roseland neighbourhood, not some old trees about to die or fall on somebody’s house.
Give the mayor a break, he may be thinking this one through. Pilot projects can be arbitrary and a potential waste of time, and can adversely affect somebody’s rights to their enjoyment and use of their own property and its value.
A tree bylaw on private property can be quite simple; cut down a tree, replace with a bunch of new ones within a comprehensive landscaping plan, in collaboration with the city arborist.