Former New Tec councillor troubled by Beeton Woods

From Barbara Huson

I wish to raise several issues for your consideration with respect to the Special Permit for tree clearing issued to Maria Rizzardo (Tecumseth Estates).

The subject property abuts the urban Boundary of Beeton. A recent article about the tree cutting in our local online newspaper Madhunt, notes “The Tecumseth Estates property was excluded from the Beeton Secondary Plan (BSP) in 2005, and a subsequent appeal to the OMB was abandoned by the Rizzardo’s in 2007. The long term goal was approximately 900 new homes. Previous to that the site was the preferred supply of the fill required for their subdivision in Alliston.”.

Our Municipality though the Tree Preservation and Compensation By-law 2008-123 requires payment for trees removed for development. For example the Ballymore development in New Tecumseth I believe compensated the town $102,594 for the trees removed to allow for their development.

So I am troubled that this property came before County Councillors as simply a request “to expand an existing agricultural area” and that the background information in the staff report centered solely around what has taken place since January 2012 when a ‘stop work order’ was issued as tree clearing was taking place without a permit.

I would think New Tecumseth Estates profit from leasing an additional 35 acres of farmland would pale in comparison to the savings they would achieve by removing the trees now, and then coming forward with another request to develop the property in the future.

I am also troubled that a statement issued by the County Forester Graeme Davis says that in Oct. 2014 The Environmental Impact Study “recommended a reduction to the proposed woodland removal to properly buffer an area stream, reducing thewoodland clearing to 30.6 acres from the original request of 34.7 acres.”

Yet the permit the County issued in January 2015 grants permission to remove approximately 35 acres of woodlands.

As I read Simcoe County’s Forest Conservation By-law – Special permit section 5.2 requires that “ At least fifteen (15) business days prior to consideration of the application for a Special Permit, the Clerk shall send, by regular mail, written notice to the applicant, all assessed owners of each parcel of land that abuts the subject lands and to such other persons as prescribed by Council.”

I have spoken with abutting landowners who were not notified.

Additionally, Section 5.3 states that “Council shall hear any person who wishes to speak for or in objection to an application for a Special Permit.”

If the review that is taking place presently, concludes that the proper procedures did not occur. I hope that County Council will allow for input by the residents as Section 5.3 seems to allow. There are valid concerns with respect to potential flooding, loss of habitat, and the overall benefit of preserving woodland.

Personally having been a Councillor and Board Member of a Conservation Authority, I never like to see a land owner placed in a position with they are left with a piece of land that they can do nothing with but pay taxes on it. In this case however, perhaps, if public dialogue were permitted we could at least raise the issue with our Municipality and see if it would consider using the funds in the tree reserve account (generated through the Tree Preservation and Compensation By-law) to purchase at least a portion of the woodlots which appear at their closest point to be within 75 feet of the proposed Trans Canada Trail as it heads north out of Beeton.

I don’t believe that anyone expects our Government to be perfect. But it is reasonable to expect that if a mistake has been made, that best efforts are made to correct it.

Previous coverage: County issues stop work order on Beeton clear-cutting