Two huge Rosedale trees face the chainsaw without even a hearing at council
By SUE-ANN LEVY
Try to follow this latest bit of twisted tree logic from Socialist Silly Hall.
It seems it is fine to chop down two huge, healthy native trees in this city if they surround a tony Rosedale Rd. home deemed to be in a "derelict" state and slated for expansion.
Yet the city has determined it is not okay to remove one non-native, invasive Norway Maple virtually taking over a tiny Grandville Ave. home in the less influential former city of York -- because, as the tree police have claimed, the house is in a "deteriorated state" (and thus it is entirely the fault of the owners that the tree's roots have infiltrated their home's foundation, its pipes as well as the basement walls and flooring).
When it comes to which applications get preferential treatment under the city's draconian private tree bylaw, I guess "derelict" means something altogether different in tony Rosedale compared to the old city of York.
Not that either home is the least bit run down, in my view. I actually took the time to visit both, which is more than I can say for the officials who pass judgment on these applications.
It gets better folks.
The application for the Rosedale Rd. home -- assessed at $2.27 million this year according to city property tax records -- was quietly approved by the city's tree police and sanctioned by ward councillor Kyle Rae without any kind of vetting whatsoever at community council or city council.
Meanwhile the owners of the Grandville home -- assessed at $204,000 this year -- have had their request turned down both by city staff and at council, where pompous tree emperor Joe Pantalone rudely declared the couple's home is "deterioriated" with a "lousy foundation" even though he hadn't actually visited the site. Rae, who couldn't be reach for comment yesterday, also voted against the tree's removal at council.
To add insult to injury, the York home's owners -- Perry Thompson and Norma Graham -- were subsequently told in a Feb. 26 memo from tree officials that they could take down the tree if they were prepared to pay the city $10,526 upfront (which includes $1,749 to replant three trees and the $6,028 value of the Norway Maple).
PROPOSED EXPANSION
The Rosedale Rd. application first came to my attention last month when I learned of a notice displayed outside the Rosedale Rd. home asking persons objecting to the removal of a red oak and a silver maple -- due to a proposed new house expansion and driveway -- to direct their concerns to Hai Nguyen in the city's urban forestry department.
After six phone calls over four weeks to both Nguyen and the clerk handling her files (Nguyen left on holidays March 5), I finally got confirmation this week of the application's approval on March 4.
Brenda Librecz, general manager of parks, forestry and recreation, said the Rosedale Rd. home is "derelict, in really bad shape" and a heritage property which the owner wants to sell. She said the city's heritage staff were consulted on the application but they would not agree to a different design (for the home's restoration) that would save the trees.
"They (heritage) have a kind of higher rule of ranking in terms of the process," she said, noting nevertheless a building permit application won't be filed with the city until the house is sold.
She added that 13 mature trees (nine on-site and four off-site) will be planted as a replacement but couldn't say what that will cost.
Asked why the application didn't go to community council, or city council, she said that normally doesn't happen with tree removals if "there's agreement" between the landowner and city staff on "next steps."
POOR RESEARCH
I have a lot of time for Librecz. But it infuriates me to think that the city's tree police have the power to apply the bylaw so inconsistently (with such few checks and balances) and to deny requests based on poorly researched reports, as was the case in the Grandville Ave. application.
Coun. Mike Del Grande, who hopes to reopen the Grandville Ave. issue at the April council meeting, said he can't stomach the hypocrisy.
"The consistency just isn't there," he said. "You can't say with a straight face one is okay and one is not."
Coun. Doug Holyday said they either have a proper tree bylaw policy or they don't and it certainly appears there are different rules for different situations. "There shouldn't be exceptions based on different areas," he said. "It makes a mockery of the whole matter."
No comments:
Post a Comment