Things may not have gone as planned for the proponents of a tree farm on Aspdin Road.
Nick Popovich, a planning consultant with Marie Poirier Planning & Associates, was before Huntsville’s Planning Committee on September 11. He said the applicants apologized that they were unable to attend the meeting. He told the committee that his clients were trying to start a new business in Huntsville and were seeking a zoning amendment, which would allow them to grow Christmas trees on about 20 acres of an estimated 60-acre property located at 949 Aspdin Road.
He said the operation would take place in the middle of the property. Because a deer wintering area was identified in Huntsville’s Official Plan, the applicants were required to hire a consultant to conduct an impact study. The recommendations of that study would be implemented through site plan control, said Popovich.
He said the applicant is hoping to grow 600 trees per acre, or 12,000 trees on 20 acres. “And what he’s told me is that these trees take between six and eight years to grow. He’s not going to plant them all at once, he’s going to do them in phases of two-and-a-half acres at a time, which will be about 1,500 trees.” He said three trucks would be carrying the trees off-site at a time. He also noted that blasting will take place to lower the grade of the driveway to increase accessibility for the transport trucks.
Popovich also said that the loading and baling of the trees will only take place in the centre of the property and there would be no operations along Aspdin Road. He also said trees will neither be stored nor sold on the property. “So the Christmas trees will just be grown, cut, baled and taken away by these trucks that I mentioned earlier. When there are works taking place in the property, they will take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and he [property owner] said not on the weekends as well,” explained Popovich who also told the committee that the property owners plan to eventually build a home on the property once they retire.
Two area property owners also attended the meeting and expressed concern with the impact the use of pesticides would have on their wells and properties. One of them received a letter from the applicants who stated that the pesticides would be organic, but she said she was still concerned. Other concerns included the impact blasting would have on wells, the need for wider buffers and questions about the number of trees that had already been cut down.
One of the property owners also expressed concern about runoff making its way into an area creek and then into Lake Vernon. “So the fact that you haven’t recognized the fact that what he’s doing is impacting on Lake Vernon is unfortunate because there’s a definite path,” she said.
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe said he’s not totally on board with the idea of a Christmas tree farm at that location. “My concern is with the use of pesticides and chemicals, etc. because organic Christmas trees, to be an organic product is actually very rare. [There are] very few in North America so unless we’re presented with all of the facts and a track record from this particular Christmas tree farmer showing that it’s a safe product and above board, without that, I’m very reluctant… to move forward,” he said.
Councillor Jason FitzGerald echoed Wiebe’s comments. He also said “enough concerns have been raised that it may not be the best use and fitting in with the surrounding uses.”
Councillor Dan Armour questioned if it would not be prudent to ask that a report be brought back to committee addressing the neighbours’ concerns. Wiebe concurred and said without further information he would be inclined to deny the application. At the same time, he said he’d be willing to consider it if the applicant and municipal staff, who recommended that the application be approved, brought back more information about the safety of the products to be used, the impact the runoff could have on other properties, wells and water bodies, and other concerns expressed at the meeting such as the impact blasting would have on aquifers in the area.
In the end, the committee agreed to defer the application pending more information. You can find the full planning report here.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
A better and expandable (like Google) map would sure make it easier to see if the comments make sense or not.
Has anyone noticed a drastic drop in deer population over the last 4 years or so? Here in Dwight our deer population, at least based on deer sightings, has dropped dramatically and in the forest the signs of over population by deer are diminishing. We actually have saplings that survive now, whereas 5 years ago the bush was eaten clean by the herd of deer. Now we have lots of Wolves.
There are plenty of trees already there. The plan to plant conifers amongst a hardwood dense forest means removing trees to allow light for the newly planted ones or they won’t thrive. Even the most scrupulous forestry will necessitate that the trees there now, and hence the tree canopy will be affected. As you can see by the map, this property is a major part of a whole forested area with trails and much wildlife both of which Muskoka is known for and thus should be preserved. Many trees have already been removed by the property owner. Why plant trees when we have them already?
I applaud people for caring about their immediate environment but sense a high level of NIMBY-ism(not in my back yard). There is a far more disruptive, surface pollutant operation in that immediate location that seems to be allowed to spread many inches of possibly adhesive laden dust on the forest floor every year….. not to mention high levels of acidic runoff into Siding lake and possibly Vernon as well.
Deer will not be effected permanently by the proposed operation and will in fact find refuge in the plantations from the high level of canid predator presence in that area. Canid predators will most likely not want to venture into that area due to traffic and populous presence. It’s simply to risky for them (Canis lapis) to venture there.
Christmas tree operations do require anti-fungal sprays, I’m not sure which is the most friendly strain but am positive that there are numerous options of “organic” or very low impact products. This area has already been victim of past government tree planting programs that are now publicly stated as a mistake by the authority that implemented them. I’m sure that the damage done to the soils from that process would be gently reversed by the proper ground maintenance require to propagate this proposed crop. As grasses are cut between planted seedlings, organic matter will be added to the soil thus greatly improving the absorption capabilities of the soil on their operation. This reduces the amount of ground water running off the surface towards the overly developed neighbouring lake and its septic systems that overburden its natural state. Possibly a clay lined holding pond could be constructed to control/test for excess levels of applied products?
Christmas tree operations are in fact highly monitored by growers as each tree requires annual, manually performed pruning.
Tom Holinshead- 5th Gen Huntsville Farm Operator.
And what are Rob Keen and Trees Ontario advocating? PLANT MORE TREES! They sequester carbon dioxide, etc. Deer are pretty resilient, and certainly blasting will be a very short term activity. And long term rotational planting ensures that there will always be some kind of tree cover. Christmas tree farms have been operating for generations in north Simcoe…
May I humbly suggest that the negative environmental issues are somewhat exaggerated, and can likely be relatively easily mitigated. Hey, it’s not a quarry!
I agree with all the concerns raised by both the neighbours and the councillors. I am also, however, concerned about the fate of the deer. If they use this as a wintering area, surely they must be nearby during the rest of the year. The blasting is extremely harmful to the deer: they will be chased away from their safe, historic, winter protection; probably to a far less satisfactory area. I’m always concerned, just on general principles, when Planning Committee disagrees with staff recommendations. Why do Town planners seem to be so pro-development? As tourism is likely to be our main industry for the foreseeable future; shouldn’t it be incumbent upon them to protect all aspects of our environment (which promote tourism)?
.
Development and tourism are not mutually exclusive alternatives. I merely feel that the former could be somewhat more thoughtful. After all, Council is the final arbiter, and they consider all proposals through the lens of our environment.