Developer one step closer to controversial plans for Arthur forest

ARTHUR – Wellington North council is in favour of a developer severing a house from nearly a hectare of forest in Arthur. 

In a staff report about the severance, the tree-covered lot is described as “vacant residential land for proposed future development.” 

But some Arthur residents don’t see 320 Smith St. (Highway 6) as vacant – they see it as one of the village’s last remaining forests.

About the size of two football fields, the woods contain a wide range of trees and wildlife.

“We shouldn’t just plow down all the trees to build more homes without thinking about the repercussions, and future for our kids,” June Kirk told the Advertiser.

Kirk, whose home backs on to the woods, said the forest is home to birds, bugs, squirrels, rabbits, foxes and chipmunks. 

“We need to work with nature when planning future developments and be mindful of how our decision will impact the environment,” she said. 

Kirk added her neighbours on Conestoga Street North are opposed to the development, noting many of them purchased their homes in part because they back on to the woods. 

Vikki Frankfurth said she also sees possums, owls and wild turkeys in her yard and she described the adjacent forest as a place of “peace.” 

Alana Simpson, 17, has lived beside the forest since the age of five and said it shaped their childhood. 

They would lay on a trampoline with friends in the afternoons, knowing that at 5pm, like clockwork, turkey vultures would fly home to nest, and the tops of the trees would bob as dozens of the birds perched in the branches. 

As Simpson spoke, a flock of blue jays took off from the corner of the yard and red-winged blackbirds sang.

“They’re a chatty bunch, especially this time of year,” Simpson said with a laugh.

There used to be deer back there too, but Simpson hasn't spotted any since the construction of the subdivision on nearby Dingman Street.  

The woods are still home to many animals, including bats, snakes and toads – most of whom would be displaced if the trees were removed to make way for housing, they said.  

Simpson is among those who have written letters to Wellington County, imploring officials to save the trees “for future generations.” 

They weren’t sure it was worth writing a letter, Simpson said – “no one wants to listen to me: a disabled child” – but they decided to proceed because once the forest is gone, it can’t be replaced. 

Simpson is also concerned about how development of the property might impact their health, as they already have difficulty breathing, and “taking the trees down would make that worse. 

“I want to be able to breathe without coughing."

The property owner, Pinestone Construction, is set to sever the lot between the existing house and a carport. 

Company officials did not respond to the Advertiser’s request for comment. 

The house will remain on the retained 865m² lot and the carport on the severed portion will be removed.

The severed lot includes the forest at the back of the property and is just over one hectare (2.5 acres) in size. 

The forest is zoned residential and is not classified as a protected woodlot in Wellington County’s official plan.

“Any woodlot less than one hectare isn’t protected as part of a greenlands system,” Wellington County planner Jamie Barnes told Wellington North council on May 4.

“However there is a county tree preservation bylaw which they may have to abide by,” she said, which would be considered at the site plan approval stage. 

The bylaw requires permits to remove trees from lots larger than one hectare and is administered by Wellington County forester Adam Buitendyk, who told the Advertiser it would not regulate trees on the Smith Street property as the treed area is less than a hectare in size. 

Mayor Andy Lennox asked if the owner is obligated to evaluate the viability of existing trees, or if the official plan or zoning bylaws offer guidance for "appropriate removal of urban forest in a situation like this?” 

Barnes recommended he direct those questions to Buitendyk. 

Buitendyk told the Advertiser “if a development application is filed ... the owner/developer would be required to submit an assessment of the treed area in support of their development application.”

“Are there things that we could implement to try to mitigate the impact in terms of tree preservation?” Lennox asked. 

Chief building official Darren Jones said he would be sure to have an answer for that question when the development returns to council for a zoning amendment.

Councillor Steve McCabe said a number of residents on Conestoga Street have reached out with concerns about removing trees to make space for more housing. 

He asked how many houses are to be built, and Jones said while he’s seen some preliminary concepts, nothing formal has been submitted so it’s too early to say how many units are proposed. 

“As long as we let our residents know what’s going on,” McCabe said. “Obviously we will keep an eye on this one, for sure.” 

Lennox stressed the importance of focusing on the matter at hand: only the severance application, not the future development.

“There’s no impact on trees at this point,” he said. 

Council voted unanimously in support of the severance application, which will go to the county’s land division committee for approval later this month.