|
Tree Removal - 49 Hillholm Road
(Midtown)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 49 Hillholm Road, requiring the applicant to incorporate the private tree into the proposed new landscaping.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property for the purpose of constructing new landscaping in the front yard has been filed by Mr. Glenn Herman of Janet Rosenberg & Associates, 148 Kenwood Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6C 2S3, agent for the owner of 49 Hillholm Road.
Recommendation:
That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.
(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to incorporate the private tree into the proposed new landscaping.
(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.
Comments:
The tree in question is a thirty-six centimetre diameter crabapple in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service states that the two main stems of the crabapple tree have started to separate and that both stems have significant cavities. The report then states that the tree could be stabilised by cabling and might come back nicely if fertilized and pruned. The crabapple tree is reaching maturity, however, the structural problems indicated in Bostock=s report do not render the tree unsafe and the tree remains viable to maintain. The applicant has indicated in a January 20, 1998, letter to Urban Forestry that he will plant one 70 millimetre diameter Japanese Tree Lilac as replacement if permission is granted for the removal of the tree in question.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. Three written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, an appraisal (December 10, 1997) from Bostock Tree Service, addressed to Janet Rosenberg & Associates, and a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Bruce Bostock, Bostock Tree Service;
- Mr. David Grant, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Stephen Stark, Toronto, Ontario.
Copies of the communications, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 18, 1998, and a copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. David Grant and Ms. Betty Grant;
- (January 21, 1998) from Mr. J. Roy Weir;
- (January 20, 1998) from Mrs. Peter Robinson.
|
