Injury and Destruction of Trees

Like the majority of residents of Aurora, fortunate enough to own a property, I am never likely to be faced with the moral dilemma of having to injure or destroy a sufficient number of trees to have to make an application to do so under the town's bylaw.

Some may consider that a misfortune.

I do not. I am thankful for my blessings.

A person owning a lot of record(a building lot), covered with trees, needing to remove some to prepare a building site, must apply for a dispensation.

A fee needs to be paid for each tree beforehand.

A town employee attends the site; identifies each tree: measures the tree: examines the health of the tree:notes the precise location of the tree.

A sign must be posted on the site notifying all and sundry, it is the intention of the owner of this property to perform the dastardly act of injuring and destroying trees .

Neighbours have the right to oppose the owners intention.

When all requirements have been met, staff must compose a full report for council recommending for or against the injury and destruction of trees.

Only Council in all its majesty, has authority to decide the fate of the trees.

In the last term, former Councillor Nigel Keane moved a permit be refused.

The building permit value of the house, complete with an indoor swimming pool, was calculated in the millions of dollars.

Market value assessment would be that and more.

Property assessment is the prime revenue source of a municipal corporation.

Well... that's a moral dilemma, don't you see.

Last month, Council voted for a hybrid design on Nisbet Drive.

It meant swooping a loop in a sidewalk, moving the roadway over by three feet, and paving twice the width of concrete at twice the cost.

On the pretext, it would save relocating utilities. It did not. It also meant injuring and destroying two beautiful specimens of perfectly healthy town street trees to accommodate the concrete pad proposed for a sidewalk.

Injury and destruction of the trees was part of the "compromise" proposed by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure (public works) to meet the desire of a single resident who objected to the sidewalk being aligned on the property line, preferring instead for it to abut the travelled portion of the road and increase the risk to pedestrians.