Charges laid in south-end tree removal

The city announced this morning it has laid 151 charges against three companies related to a well-publicized tree-cutting incident last summer.

The press release does not name those companies charged, but city documents show the property in question is owned by developer Carson Reid, who has never commented publicly on the cutting or resulting community concerns.

On June 11, a city resident discovered a logging operation underway on a property near Victoria and Maltby roads and reported it to the city. The resident estimated 65 acres of trees had been removed before the work was discovered and halted by the city.

Under the city's tree bylaw, it is illegal to destroy a tree, or cause one to be destroyed, within the city. The bylaw allows fines of $500 to $2,000 per offence.

We'll have more in the paper tomorrow.

Comments

[r tyson]

Good for the city! That is about a $75,000-$300,000 fine. Better than the two $180 fines the federal government came up with for the same offence.

[Jan Hall]

Its about time we heard what the City is going to do about this issue.

The timing could not be better.

The Ontario Urban Forest Council’s Annual Conference "Tree Preservation and the Planning Process – Moving Ahead" will be taking place in Guelph this year.

Trees are increasingly regarded as beautiful and effective tonics to our polluted planet, with a long list of social, environmental and economic benefits. Sadly, preserving trees or allocating adequate space for future planting is rarely considered in the development process.

The conference takes place on Thursday, November 12 at the University of Guelph Arboretum.

Speakers will include city planners, environmental planners, politicians, development consultants and educators who will bring their professional experience and municipal perspectives to share ideas.

Apparently the City of Guelph and some of its real planning issues will be showcased to stimulate discussion of how best to protect our urban forests.

On Wednesday, November 11 from 7 to 9 p.m., the OUFC will be holding their AGM at the Shakespeare Arms near the Campus Estates Plaza. Well respected urban forest professor, Dr Andy Kenney will give a short presentation entitled “Preserving Trees and the Planning Process: Covering Your Assets”.

Please visit www.oufc.org for complete conference details.

Hope the Merc can send someone to cover the conference.

For more information on the need to protect Guelph's Urban Forest visit Guelph Urban Forest Friends at www.guffguelph.ca.

We'll also be covering the conference on CFRU 93.3fm's Royal City Rag, on November 7 (7-9 a.m.), www.royalcityrag.ca.

[D C]

The City had to step up and reclaim control of growth and not just allow developers to do whatever they wanted.

This was a do or die situation with huge implications. And the City stepped up. This is a great day for Guelph!!

[Bill Hulet]

We'll see. It will be a great day for Guelph if the courts decide in favour of the city and impose a fine high enough that it doesn't just become a "cost of doing business".

I don't want to be a spoils-sport, but if the city won $2000 per tree that would come to $352,000. If that is the cost of regaining control over 65 acres and allowing you to build houses on them, it is a pretty cheap price to pay.

[Scott]

Actually Bill I believe the maximum the city could see would be $302,000 (151 X $2,000), but I also know from my years in court nobody ever gets the maximum.
It frankly wouldn't surprise me if this was settled for about 10 grand, which really would become a "cost of doing business."

[Jan Hall]

Scott,

Perhaps you can follow up with the city on the whereabouts of a stricter protective tree by-law?

Mayor Farbridge called for a stricter protective tree by-law during her first term as Mayor yet at the CDES meeting in March, she blocked councillor Piper's request for an interim tree by-law, the argument being that staff should work on a permanent tree by-law.

Carson Reid is not the only developer flouting the current tree by-law. We need a much stricter by-law in place ASAP before yet more of our mature urban forest canopy is lost. Currently we sit at 27%. The desired level is 40%.

Most cities in Ontario have much stricter tree by-laws than Guelph which is a shame when we consider our environmentally-conscious reputation.

For more info on Guelph's trees visit www.guffguelph.ca and contact the Mayor and Councillors requesting that they put an interim tree by-law in place while they complete work on both the Natural Heritage Strategy and a permanent tree by-law.

[Bill D.]

This is excellent news...glad to see it finally come to a conclusion. Let's see what the courts do with it. Let's hope they send a clear message that developers cannot underhandedly thumb their nose at the citizens, to heck with silly things like by-laws, environment, planning process. If Reid got away with this, all the other land owners in town would be out tomorrow with chainsaws.

[Dave Sills]

I have to wonder how they came up with the 151 number. Surely there were many more trees felled than that in that large plantation. Is 151 charges a true reflection of the damage done, or a compromise that shows action but doesn't turn off the developers? Even at $300K, this is just the cost of doing business - as Bill suggested.

[D C]

Im curious, do people think that potential home buyers thinking about moving to Guelph and purchasing a home would be influenced by the fact that the developer was charged with environmental wrongdoing when it cleared the land? Assuming that they were somehow informed of that fact when home shopping.

The fine may become just another cost of doing business for the developer's bottom line but the implications of charges could have much larger, and long term, consequences.

[Dave Sills]

I just learned that two of the companies face 50 charges and the other faces 51 (adding up to 151). So, that means the number of trees represented by the charges is only 50 (since the bylaw states that each tree cutting constitutes an offence). The number of trees cut down numbered far more than 50. It will be very interesting to see how they came up with 50.

Re potential home buyers considering this action when buying a home, my guess is that the number would not be nearly enough to make a significant difference.

[Jan Hall]

Its very interesting to note that:

Carson Reid also own River Valley Developments, the quarry at the centre 0f serious concern about blasting below the aquitard, the protective layer over our local aquifer (see www.Wellington Waterwatchers.ca for Press Release)

Also, according to a Staff comment on Councillor Ian Findlay's Ward 2 blog (see www.ward2guelph.wordpress.com, under HCBP info), Carson Reid" is going to be sold and conveyed 1.38 acres of the proposed HCBP development for residential as they already have a townhouse block abutting this parcel to the north in the Kortright Hills IV subdivision".

Jan Hall
www.royalcityrag.ca

[Scott]

Thanks Jan. I don't believe I was previously aware of this residential component. I'm looking into it a bit more.

[Dave Sills]

Earlier I wrote: "I just learned that two of the companies face 50 charges and the other faces 51 (adding up to 151). So, that means the number of trees represented by the charges is only 50 (since the bylaw states that each tree cutting constitutes an offence)."

Seems I was mistaken. It appears the number of trees represented is actually 151, but the charges themselves were split equally between the three companies rather than have each company charged 151 times.

Is this the first time there has been a significant number of charges under this bylaw?