It’s one of the development proposals that has prompted renewed calls for a tree-cutting bylaw along with clearcutting at 119 Townline Road East, known as the Summit development. Huntsville does not have a tree-cutting bylaw and is therefore unable to prevent the clearcutting of trees on private property.
The proposed subdivision at 120 Town Line Road East with access to Forbes Hill Drive, whose developer has also been maligned for clear-cutting a swathe of land before planning approvals were in place, returned to Huntsville’s planning committee on October 14.
The lot at 120 Town Line Road East has preexisting development rights for five estate residential lots but the developer has put forth an amendment for the creation of 14 residential lots. Each lot would have a minimum area of 685 m² with about 18 metres of frontage on a private condominium road. The largest lot would be about 5.1 hectares in area. Each lot would be serviced by municipal water and sewer services. An internal private road would connect the lots and provide access to Forbes Hill Drive over an existing private road known as Town Line Road East, according to planning reports.
The application made its way to committee last month, essentially asking its members to sign off on a request for condominium and draft subdivision approvals at the District, but committee members refused, with the majority preferring to defer the application pending further discussions with the developer regarding things like the creation of trails and the overall environmental impact of tree removal.
Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano led the charge saying she was not a fan of the project.
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe concurred. “I won’t be supporting this application, nowhere near, but I also thank the applicant because now I believe we are positioned to discuss a tree-cutting bylaw because they’ve essentially left us no choice.”
Deputy Mayor and committee chair Nancy Alcock said she was hoping to see a more resilient and progressive development, and guided staff on some of the issues she hoped could be addressed with the developer.
The application returned to committee on October 14, along with a conceptual drawing and a letter to the Mayor and council from the developer, Barry Barisic.
In a letter to councillors, Barisic noted that the initial approval for the five lots had received a peer-reviewed environmental impact study indicating that no cutting of trees be undertaken during nesting season between April and October.
Barisic speaks to committee at an October 14 remote meeting while staff include a drawing of the proposed development.
“Clearing was eventually done in February 2020 consistent with the approval and accounted for approximately 15 per cent of the property. The remaining portion of the rugged property shall remain in its natural state,” he noted.
Prompted by a question from Terziano, staff said they could not confirm or deny whether just 15 per cent of the property had in fact been cleared.
Barisic also premised in his letter that the clear-cutting that had taken place was not done with 14 but with the five approved lots in mind.
“With regard to the criticism that clearing was done on the revised proposal, in fact the clearing conducted was consistent with the needs of the approved development and it closely matches the later revised proposal submitted. The building envelope is virtually the same. Engineering studies concluded that due to the nature of the topography, a low lying wet area on top of the ridge with very few healthy trees where the principal home was to be built, a low lying area close to Townline Rd. and a steep ridge in between the two, meant that extensive grading would be necessary in the building envelope in order to facilitate the road construction, build functional water drainage and install appropriate services. The survival of any trees in that envelope was unlikely given this grading requirement,” he stated.
The applicant agreed to construct a pedestrian path between the proposed entrance to the cul de sac and the Forbes Hill Drive and Town Line Road East intersection, along the private portion of the road, among other requirements.
Prompted by questions from Wiebe asking what would make the buildings stand out from an environmental perspective and make the development something that would be welcomed in the community, Barisic , who was available at the meeting remotely, said he’s planning on investigating the use of solar panels where possible and intends to implement other technology, also wherever possible, to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
“I think you will be pleased when this project is completed. There’s ample space for reforesting, replanting, and landscaping and I believe the location is unique, and once completed it will stand out as a positive in Huntsville,” said Barisic. “As far as my environmentalism is concerned, I stand on my record and I’m quite proud of it. It was no pleasure removing those trees, but if you’ve taken a look at what was actually there before the trees were removed, only a trailerful of trees were actually removed from that property. Sparsely forested second growth with a few large trees in between and frankly the upper part was a swale that was holding water and preventing any kind of forest to thrive. Once properly graded and landscaped, I think this will be a very nice development.”
In the end, the majority of committee members voted in favour of recommending that the District move forward with the required applications, with Wiebe voting against it.
You can find the full staff report, including Barisic’s letter, at this link.
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!
I was not at the council presentation but reading the comments above I’m wondering if all are talking about the same area. From the map presented this is an area located on the right side of Townline Rd E as it passes the Forbes Hill Dr turn. I don’t believe it’s visible from Brunel. While this section was definitely clear cut, the more visible eyesore is the adjacent property that rises behind the Denovo (previously Waterloo) building.
The application in question may cover both properties but if not, the clear cut on the hill that is visible from Brunel is more shocking. With the caveat that I’m no engineer, my first thought was the issue of runoff when it rains. What is proposed for this property? and has that review been held by Council?
As for there only being a ‘trailerful of trees’ taken from the property, both of the properties I’m referencing had heavy duty wood chippers running for days and you can put a whole bunch of wood shavings, from a whole bunch of trees in a truck, if that is how the developer is measuring it.
The most significant issue is not so much the discussion about the contractors clear cutting or the percentage of trees removed, the big question is WHY the Huntsville Town Council does not or has not undertaken to put into place a standards of practice for what contractors or owners can do with respect to the removal of trees, diverting the flow of naturally occurring drainage and the like. The town is not demonstrating their accountability to ensure that others are not disadvantage by those who could well ruin a community.
Reckless owners or contractors will scream but for the most part people want (demand?) that development is done on a respectful, thoughtful and environmentally friendly manner.
Council – do your job and stop acting political or like politicians, people are frustrated by this approach.
What a horrific eyesore this is as anyone driving down Brunel Rd. can easily see. Councillors you need to man and woman up and show some backbone and make the right decisions concerning our environment. Get a by-law done that prevents clearcutting, …crazy that this would not already be in place.
The 15% clear cutting admitted by the builder should NOT be judged on merely the numerical number but the impact that the 15% has visually on the whole look of the area. It looks just horrendous!!
Thank-you Mr Wiebe for having the strength to stand alone when its really needed.
Thanks for your vote, Mr. Wiebe.
We are reminded daily to responsibly take an interest in our enviroment ….Where is the interest at the town level in keeping our surrounds from an environmental perspective”?, Development proposals such as this one ought to be presented following dialogue and partnerships with environmental caregivers, traditional land keepers, and ecologists.
So what of a tree cutting bylaw, then? There will be a next time.
A lot of the comments that I see have me concerned, particularly if you have carefully read the whole story. Coming from a housing supply industry perspective, even I totally get and wholeheartedly support any restrictions that would prevent “clear cutting” but this developer did not clear cut his property; he cut only 15% of it. Even if the true number were more take than give, why shouldn’t he be able to enjoy a reasonable timber harvest for whatever purpose without having to pay further homage to Big Brother; why should this spark further debate on a proposed carte blanche tree cutting by-law masked as a tool to stop “clear cutting”?? It looks and sounds to me just like a few self-entitled noses got put out of joint for some pretty flimsy reasons.
Be careful what you may wish for because everything does have cause and effect. For all those who advocate for even more controls and restrictions upon private property rights, you would best be doing yourself a service by first acknowledging that you will still need to house your sons and daughters and that does not even include new Canadians. You cannot stop progress, particularly within Town limits where you have already paid for the public infrastructure to support further growth which is still coming whether you like it or not; just like you cannot treat housing suppliers poorly and expect honey in return. Artificially restraining the supply chain, particularly during a period of high demand, can only lead to a lack of supply and artificially high prices. Just look around you. “Not in my back yard”, does not cut it. Pretending that you pay the realty tax installments, does not cut it. Council would best be serving the long-term best interests of all residents by intensifying development within its zoned limits. Just saying.
Thanks for taking us down this slippery, clear-cut slope Town Council. Cudos to Jonathon for taking a stand. I don’t know how many on town council have been by this property lately but it needs to be seen. I run this route often and still marvel at the utter disrespect for the land that has been shown by this developer. The fact that council didn’t listen to themselves after the first alarm went off is utterly mind numbing.
I wonder what counsellor Thompson would think if the lake he is on was clear-cut and then the development plan put in place? Counsellor Alcock, for all of your positions on the environment, the fact that you were involved in an eco-friendly development, where is your voice.
This council needs to grow a collective pair and take a stand. Maybe we should have some JK students come in to a council meeting to read The Lorax.
Once it’s gone council, it’s not coming back!
“UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, It’s not.”
With apologies to The Beatles: “Take a sad development, and make it worse”.
How can a developer come in, destroy vegetation willy-nilly (with zero approvals in place), and then receive. Then he returns with some hocus-pocus about the 5 lots no longer being feasible while nearly trebling the size of the subdivision. This cash cow receives almost universal approval (Thank you, Jonathon).
Are we that desperate for development that we permit such a travesty? For my money, we live in the most desirable area of the province. So why aren’t developers approaching Planning Committee with “hat in hand” trying to blow them away with the beauty of their development?
The homes “may have” solar panels: Well that’s ugly, and a personal choice to boot. Far preferable would be an array of solar panels (with appropriate environmental screening).
And we still didn’t get our tree-cutting bylaw. So I must also assume that the Town has no pedestrian path standard: I imagine it will end up to be a handful of screenings; inaccessible for most of the year by the ambulatory-disabled. Were you too cowed to ask for a sidewalk at least?
I am well and truly saddened.
A swale was preventing any kind of forest to thrive? “Properly grad(ing) and landscaping” a second growth forest is egocentric and rude. If there really is an interest at the town level in “mak(ing) buildings stand out from an environmental perspective”, development proposals such as this one ought to be presented following dialogue and partnerships with environmental caregivers, traditional land keepers, and ecologists. “Indigenous Peoples have known for thousands of years how to care for our planet. The rest of us have a lot to learn and no time to waste,” Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, stated at the COP21 in Paris in 2015.
“only a trailerful of trees were actually removed“. No.
“planning on investigating the use of solar panels where possible”. Not much on offer there.
Good luck to us all. Thanks for your vote, Mr. Wiebe.
So what of a tree cutting bylaw, then? There will be a next time.
I find it disheartening that only Councilor Wiebe voted against this.
I believe all voters should take note that both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor voted for it.
This is an absolute eyesore because they clear cut the area even before approvals were granted.
As Councilor Wiebe suggests, Council must now address a bylaw that would prevent similar clear cutting from occurring before all approvals have been granted for a development in the future.
I disagree wholeheartedly with several points made by the developer- good for Mr. Wiebe for taking a stand on this unfortunate project.