'I came here and I cried': Richmond Hill residents dismayed over removal of 104 trees in historic core

There were 174 trees on the site; 104 would be removed under the proposal

Yorkregion.com
Sept. 18, 2020
Sheila Wang

The residents fought and lost.

The looming destruction of more than 100 mature trees in Richmond Hill has shaken up the community in the village core, which is reeling from a failed attempt to preserve the small forest three years ago.

On Sept. 8, crews were seen on the fenced lot on Arnold Crescent working to chop down the trees that have stood for decades in order to make way for residential redevelopment.

“I came here and I cried. It’s rape of the land. There is no respect for the old town,” said Ingrid Wharton, who had dreaded for this day to come.

Wharton, a resident of 54 years, said she and her neighbours held a ceremony to bid farewell to the old-growth trees on Sept. 3, just ahead of the construction work for three single-detached houses and 88 back-to-back townhouses on the lot.

An outdated sign that read “four single family dwellings and 37 townhouse dwelling units” -- originally proposed in 2015 -- were still on display on Sept. 9 on the chain-link fence, which residents say was just a typical example of the lack of communication from the city.

To this day, Wharton said she had no idea how the new plan came about.

In 2016, the landowner Laurier Homes Inc. appealed the original plan to The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) -- now known as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) -- after the city's “failure to make a decision.”

The plan was originally proposed to remove 85 out of a total of 174 inventoried trees on the land, according to Wharton, who appeared at the LPAT hearing with several neighbours in an effort to save more trees.

However, the original development proposal fell short of Richmond Hill's expectations for intensification prescribed for the village district, and the landowner revised the plan to include more dwelling units before the hearing, according to Ward 4 Coun. David West.

Located near the intersection of Yonge Street and Major MacKenzie Drive, the 1.1-hectare lot has about 70 metres of frontage along Arnold Crescent and is part of Richmond Hill’s historical commercial centre.

After a two-year of LPAT process, the city and Laurier Homes settled in 2018 on the revised plan, which saw higher density and the number of trees for removal increased to 104.

“It was under the table,” said resident Elyse Pomeranz, who was stunned by the decision.

Pomeranz made a presentation at the LPAT hearing with a focus on the four Norway Spruce trees on 60 Arnold Cres. that she said were likely “about 80 or so years old.”

The four trees are most likely to be cut down for the three proposed single-detached houses, she said.

“We were absolutely gobsmacked of what happened,” Wharton said, adding she was left in the dark about the revision on the number of trees to be cut.

West said he was “a little surprised” that the issue came up two years after a decision was made at LPAT.

The councillor said he had worked closely with an active group of residents on the matter at the hearing.

“I’m not thrilled with what happened,” said West, who attempted to save the trees as well.

The councillor said he put forward a motion prior to the LPAT hearing to modify the plan from three single-detached houses to two along the frontage on Arnold to spare more trees, but was voted down.

“In fairness, there are a bunch of trees that are gonna be planted and the trees that are gonna be planted are probably gonna be bigger than what would normally have been required,” West said.

Wharton said the tree replacement would hardly undo the negative impact of the removal of the existing ones on the "established feeling" of the whole area.

Without access to the details of the development, the resident pointed out she had little idea what was happening on the lot across the street from her house, such as which trees would be cut down and what the neighbourhood would look like.

The Liberal tried to obtain a copy of the latest application from the city and was asked to file a freedom of information request.