Clearcut in Kingston East

[hploock]

I am sure most of you have already heard about the clear cutting activities in kingston East

If not, some information can be found on
http://home.cogeco.ca/~clearcut.kingston/Clearcut-Kingston.htm

Peter Splinter, owner of Braebury Homes is clear-cutting over 150 acres containing pristine woodland in Kingston East in advance of the Tree preservation bylaw that is meant to prevent such destruction.

Clear cutting is currently under way in Kingston East. The 150 acres of land are designated as containing sensitive species and woodlands by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Beavers, coyotes, deer, rose-breasted grosbeaks, white-throated sparrows, Nashville warblers, bohemian waxwings, black rat snakes and many other species are commonly seen in this area.

As the law currently stands, developers can clear cut a property before applying for permission to build, and before any environmental assessment of the land.

According to the Whig Standard, 43 other municipalities in Ontario have this type of by-law already in place. It is also common in other parts of Canada and throughout Europe.

It is difficult to say where it will stop! This week the Splinter family has started cutting into the 250 acres that connect Rogers Sideroad with Butternut Creek. These are again environmentally sensitive maple stands that according to the residents are over 100 years old.

It is important to know that the land cannot be developed into "Braebury Homes"-type high-density housing. It is zoned agricultural and the entire area is a watershed with a beaver pond and a creek running through it. Of course there are no sewers east of the CFB (some 3-5 kilometers away)- and they cannot be easily brought in, since -even with the recent upgrade- the Ravensview water processing plant is not fit to handle sewage from over 100 more homes. To install septic beds the land must be divided into lots of 2 or more acres, but even then it is doubtful whether the former marshland will be suited for low-density development.

It really does appear as if the entire exercise is meant to show the city, who's calling the shots in Kingston.

[nstn]

Yes, this behaviour is a good example of why we need a tree by-law in Kingston.

Perhaps we should start rating our developers on their level of "tree friendliness". No doubt it would speak volumes about their general regard for the environment when they develop property.

Some would suggest that we need to judge all development based on the level of "environmental friendliness". But without common and accepted standards it will be hard to make progress in this direction

Reference: see Index of Environmental Friendliness (http://www.stat.fi/tk/yr/ye22_en.html)

[Florence]

Hploock - what does the Official Plan say about the areas you mention?

[hploock]

Hello,
a brief reply to the two questions raised by florence and "nstn". There is actually an online rating for builders (http://canada.rateyourbuilder.info/builders.php?city_id=147), but environmental friendliness doesn't factor in. I think it is fair to say that all developers, who sell houses in high density developments (less then 100'x100') would plant no more than one tree - a maple typically, because that's what everyone wants. That means that the existing forest would be replaced by 1000 houses and 1000 saplings. Not exactly a functioning ecosystem...
The urban growth strategy as put together by the city's consultants, designates the area in question (St. Lawrence community) as "long-term planning area" - I think that is the term. The official plan of June 2004, keeps the designation of the St. Lawrence community unchanged from an earlier official plan, i.e. low density housing (2 acre lots south of Hwy 2, along Faircrest Blvd.) and rural, agricultural north of Hwy. wiht exceptions of Rogers siderd and Glenview/Fay St. Don't quote me on that, this is largely from memory...
Hope that addresses you question
Peter

[Florence]

Yes- I guess that partially answers it. The point I was hoping to make is that citizens have a responsibility to address the Official Plan and zoning in the areas that concern them. The proper forum for these concerns is there. That, of course raises the question of how the discussions of Offical Plans and zoning by-laws can be made real to people.