New Tec to argue still active OP, zoning application trumps County tree-clearing permit

New Tecumseth Free Press Online

New Tecumseth solicitor Jay Feehely will represent the Town next Tuesday morning at a hearing concerning an appeal of Simcoe County’s stop work order that suspended a special permit issued to clear approximately 30 acres of woodlot from the 241 acre agricultural property in Beeton.

According to material filed with the County, and posted this morning on its web site as part of the overall agenda, Mr. Feehely will argue 6386 and 6416 9th Line, owned by Tecumseth Estates (Rizzardo) since 1991, remain “very much alive” as planning applications for Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments, which if ever approved, would include the lands within the Beeton settlement area, opening it to residential subdivision development.

“Pursuant to applications of this nature, the Town would require various studies to be completed,” Mr. Feehely argues in his submission.

“At the earliest stages and before initiating grading or other site alteration works on the property, the Town would require a Tree Preservation Report and archeological assessment. While an archeological assessment was done in 2000 as part of the request for an aggregate extraction permit, it would not meet the Town’s development requirements, as it had a restricted study area. Further, tree preservation and identification is fundamental to any development application.

“As well, the Town requires compensation for trees lost in the development process. In subdivision applications of this size, the value attached to tree preservation and compensation for tree loss is very substantial. As a result, the permit to remove trees under the County By-Law would allow the owner to effectively avoid obligations under its current development applications with the Town.

“The Town has issues both with tree preservation and compensation which would be defeated if the County permit is allowed to go through. Also, it could adversely affect archeological requirements which are a pre-requisite to any alteration of the site. In these circumstances, the continuance of the County permit would effectively defeat fundamental application issues in respect to the ongoing development applications of the owner with the Town.”