What’s with the clearcutting near the hydro corridor?
Location of land clearing near hydro corridor.
I’ve received a number of calls and emails from residents concerned about clear cutting of land adjacent the hydro corridor running south from Graham’s Lane from Stephenson behind Hammond and Hager. (See attached aerial photo). This came as much a surprise to me as to residents.
Here’s what I’ve learned.
CN owned the land. They recently sold the land to a private individual. The individual said he is doing some “clean up” of the area. As we have no private tree bylaw, the city cannot stop any resident from cutting trees on their private land. (This is something I raised last term of council; a proposed bylaw to prevent clear cutting was defeated 4-3; I hope to reintroduce something this term of council).
The land is zoned “S” for utility. As such it cannot be developed. If the purchaser of the land was hoping to add this land to any land they might own abutting the hydro corridor, a rezoning would be required. A rezoning is a public process and requires a council vote.
I will monitor what happens here and let residents know if there is any development activity here. Residents have reported significant activity and we asked bylaw officers to look into what was happening. If the site is being altered (fill added/removed, or grading changes) a permit is required.
Our bylaw staff reported that no bylaws are being broken, but we will continue to watch what is happening.
If you have further questions, please join us at the Thorpe neighbourhood public meeting May 26, 7 p.m., Art Gallery of Burlington. More details are available here:
June 10, 2015 @ 8:09 am
H Cheryl:
Are you Shure there was no reason to remove the trees? Perhaps they smply dd not want them.
As for the landscapng decsons that would also be a matter of choce.
Burlngton has a property standards bylaw, we certanly don’t need another to determne what can and cannot be done on prvate property.
June 2, 2015 @ 5:17 pm
We really need a tree bylaw n Burlngton. Ths whole thng makes me sck. My brother and hs wfe lve n Etobcoke and they have a very strong tree bylaw n place.
The people who moved n next door to me cut down two fully mature trees n ther backyard. There was no reason for ths–they have not planted anythng n ther place–the whole backyard looks lke a vacant lot-no plants-no bushes and dead grass. The front s not much better–ths on a lovely old court where everyone else takes great care of ther property. Ths was done at least 8 years ago. It takes away from the whole neghbourhood. If there had been a bylaw n place at least the trees would have added to the value of the property.
May 12, 2015 @ 12:08 pm
My home also backs onto ths path. The squrrels, snakes, bunnes and brds that have lost ther homes are very dstressed. I am hopng they wll be replantng somethng, not just pavng as ths s one of the few places for me to walk my rescue doggy that s scared of bkes skateboards strollers joggers and pretty much anythng wth wheels. I see they nstalled weepng tle so maybe they wll just be replantng? Do we know who the owner s? Has anyone spoken to the guys workng out there?
May 7, 2015 @ 1:38 pm
As one of the home owners that backs on to the hydro path, I am very concerned wth what s planed for the property Burlngton hydro sold off. Do
we know who bought t? or why t was clear cut?, why s t beng flattened? or when I can stop wakng up to the sounds of constructon equpment?
Please do some dggng and put all of our mnds at ease, and f a meetng s gong to happen about ths peace of land let us all know so we can protect our neghborhood.
May 2, 2015 @ 10:29 am
Very nterestng. I’m takng part n a Jane’s Walk ths afternoon lookng at the potental for ths hydro corrdor to provde a mult-use path connectng Downtown wth Farvew Dr. and potentally even as far as the Burlngton GO staton f the cty and ralway can fnd the wll to co-operate. How fantastc t would be to have an actve transportaton lnk between Downtown and the man transt hub!
There’s some hydro equpment just south of Stephenson/Graham’s Lane surrounded by a fence, whch means that ether the fence would have to be moved n, or any path would have to encroach on the former ralway land, whch was just sold off by CN. Do you know f the Cty was approached regardng ths property (or even expressed nterest)? Ths connecton s shown n the Trals Master Plan whch, I understand has been completed n draft but not yet submtted to Councl.
April 28, 2015 @ 10:12 pm
As you say the owner has the opton to remove the trees and the zonng has been n place for many years. It should not be a surprse to the resdence n the area.
Concludng a tree bylaw s requred s a stretch.
Perhaps you could explan the concerns that were rased wth the clear cuttng on ths corrdor.
May 1, 2015 @ 1:24 pm
John, In short many people (myself ncluded) beleve trees add value to our communty, our health, clean CO2, shade, provde habtat homes, and trees often outlast a partcular owner of a partcular pece of land. As they provde communty benefts, some type of control of mass clearng of health trees should be mplemented. The hydro corrdor s bare where trees ones stood.
May 2, 2015 @ 3:13 pm
I would certanly agree wth the benefts trees provde.
Many of the trees we enjoy on prvate property were planted by the owners when there were none.
I lve n a part of Burlngton that s now approachng the sxty year mark. The land was clear cut at the tme of buldng and now has numerous mature and beautful trees. Over the years the owners nurtured these trees and spent countless hours prunng, fertlzng, waterng and yes rakng the leaves. The trees that were spared durng constructon are now all but gone and replaced wth those thoughtfully planted by ndvdual owners.
Clear cuttng to facltate buldng s not the problem as one drve thru ths area wll confrm. Trees de and are cut down for many reasons and new ones are planted t just takes tme and patence.
I have consderable tme and money nvested n the two mature trees on my property. Please don’t tell me or any other owner what should or shouldn’t be done wth them.
April 28, 2015 @ 2:36 pm
Thanks Maranne for the update. I’m havng a REAL PROBLEM wth a truculent, stubborn, neghbour and my nsurance company. As you know, I recently purchased a Kohler generator ( 18,000 watt capacty ) and had t nstalled last December. I was able, wth Burlngton Hydro assstance, to observe what ‘other obstacles’ mght prevent me from becomng entrenched n a $6,000. deductble nsurance clam n the event a tree on the neghborng lot should fall durng a freezng ran accumulaton and wpe out my new electrcal mast at the center of the house rear. I was advsed by Burlngton Hydro, such an ncdent has a hgh probablty. Hydro also stated they would not come on ste to restore power f the mast was down due to the neghbour’s tree fall.
I would have to arrange a contract wth a local electrcan to re-nstall the mast before Hydro would restore power.
As I ndcated earler, we are “good to go” from a hook-up and stand-by poston to supply four neghbours n the event of an ce storm, transformer falure or general power outage. That represents a total of ten people who would have stand-by electrcal support n the event any of the prevously descrbed events should occur. I dd not nclude the truculent neghbour n any of my plans.
I am as concerned about tree canopy as Burlngton Hydro, Burlngton Green and Cty Parks. In fact, I’ve notced all three agences are workng n a complementary fashon wth one another.
In order to re-confgure our rear lot to remove the above-ground swmmng pool, we had to remove all trees.
We are now n the poston where we wll be replacng the trees whch were removed. We wll be nstallng two royal maples ths summer and addtonal shrubbery n accordance wth our revsed plans.
We have lved at ths locaton snce September 15, 1968 and are now quckly approachng a 50-year annversary.
That’s why I am hopeful that the Cty wll shortly be n a poston to resolve my dlemma. In certan partcular stuatons, Cty should have the authorty to ntervene, prescrbe, and dctate correctve acton n accordance wth sound prncples. If t becomes necessary that a resdent should cut back an exstng tree, the Cty should legslate that by-law.
Thank you,
Ever Hopeful
Charle Dexter