A group of residents on the western end of Water Street are trying to stop a proposed development on a wood lot they say is environmentally significant.
“The last thing we want to do is destroy a mature, probably over 100-year-old woodlot,” said area resident Nicola Bryant at a planning meeting of City Council Tuesday night.
“This would be absolutely devastating,” Bryant said.
The property owner wants to build seven townhouses and one detached home on a half-acre lot at 300 Water St., at a dead end just before the Hanlon Expressway.
Planning consultant GSP Group, on behalf of property owner T.J.L. Transport Ltd., has applied for an Official Plan amendment for slightly higher density (allowing the detached home) and zoning bylaw relief to help make that happen.
Tuesday was the public meeting portion of the application. No decisions were made.
The lot in question is attached to a hydro corridor that saw hundreds of trees removed in 2015.
City planner Lindsay Sulatycki said it was the clear cutting of the trees on Hydro One property behind the lot in 2015 that freed up the lot for this type of application.
Prior to that the lot was part of a continuous tree lot on land zoned ‘urban reserve’ and ‘open space’ that could not be developed.
The proposal calls for 182 of the 193 trees on the lot to be removed. Hugh Handy, a planner for the applicant, said 122 of those trees are in rough shape.
Bryant wants the city to look at purchasing the property to retain its natural status.
“There has been a lot of interruption of that natural continuity so far,” Bryant said, noting that the property sits 250 metres from the Speed River.
Area residents organized their own study of the property that refuted the developer’s stance that the property is “not provincially or locally significant” on environmental grounds.
“There’s still a lot of things that haven’t been answered and need to be investigated,” said Bryant in regard to the ecological impact the development would have.
Ten area residents spoke Monday in opposition to the development. Roughly 20 others submitted letters.
Lorna Rourke, said the neighbourhood has faced “devastation” over the past few years with the amount of trees it has lost.
“We had a neighbourhood that was full of forest three or four years ago,” Rourke said. “We hope that we don’t have to face any more.”
There were also concerns expressed regarding parking if the development went ahead.
Ian Barker said “if you make a decision to approve development, you’re approving bad development in my opinion.”
Martin Litchfield, a neighbour and forester with 40 years experience, said the trees on the lot provide a variety of ecological benefits.
“We need this forest to contribute to the city’s 40 percent cover target,” Litchfield said.
City staff will now review the various technical reports with the proposal, including the environmental impact study, and come back to council at a later date with a recommendation.
