Although I notified the city forestry department of this impending demolition, months in advance, the two city trees in front of it were also destroyed. I understand that it would have been difficult to construct the doubles with both trees remaining, but I had hoped that maybe the tree which was on the front corner of the property, might have been spared.
However, upon reading the forestry departments' explanation for this decision, I understand that perhaps these particular trees were not the best ones for this location.
According to the city forestry department:
"All trees are greatly impacted by even a little site disturbance. In this case, the site will be massively altered. The amount of root loss is too significant for the overall retention. Trees will foliate for a few seasons but inevitably slowly die back, leaving the Forestry dept to remove the tree and stump, then replant, all at our expense.-Large site alterations and root loss would create a structural stability concern with this Norway Maple, thus leaving the tree to be compromised and a safety concern.-The Crimson King “Norway” Maple is not suitable to have been planted under the Hydro Utility lines and should have most definitely never have been planted in that location. Both trees were planted under the lines and very much too close to one another to actually thrive for any length of time.-This species of tree is considered invasive in our region due to numerous ailments and site conditions.-As the building permits were granted, receiving monetary compensation for the inevitable death of these trees was a best case scenario. We now have more funds to plant within the community, Forestry will require the developer to plant the “Right tree in the right place” considering the overhead hydro lines. Additionally, building code services collected the $700.00 tree planting deposit per address, to ensure planting takes place. If the developer opts out of the planting, Forestry will also retain these funds and plant through our program."
However, that first paragraph, about site disturbance causing too much root damage, does not bode well for the decision about the tree I desperately want to keep, at #77. In fact, it seems to sound the death knell for all trees, who are guilty of the venial sin of living in the path of developers' plans for massive houses.
With the house and trees out of the way at #65, we now have the resulting construction madness of a blocked street, truck traffic and constant noise.
Last Sunday, the excavator worked all day long, until darkness fell. In my last post, when listing the characteristics of living in a construction zone, I neglected to mention the shaking of our house. Some mornings I wake up, thinking that we may be experiencing an earthquake. Then I realize that it's 7 am and work has resumed at this latest work site. I'm no structural engineer, but I'm guessing that this shaking is not beneficial for neighbouring houses. In recent conversations in the neighbourhood, I was reminded of perhaps the most serious problem with infill construction - the very real damage which sometimes occurs to neighbouring properties, resulting in long and acrimonious dealings.
So here's my revised list, of the problems associated with living in the middle of a construction zone:
1. The hassle of having large vehicles all over the street, often blocking driveways
2. The dust and dirt that blows everywhere
3. The workers who sometimes leave garbage around
4. The debris, including the cement that was allowed to flow down our street
5. The constant, ever-changing NOISE!
6. The shaking of neighbouring houses
7. You can never sleep in.
8. The loss of trees, shrubs, gardens and lawns.
9, The damage sometimes inflicted on neighbouring properties and the resulting stress
No comments:
Post a Comment