‘Another nail in the coffin of the urban forest’: Champlain Park residents mourn massive oak tree

Article content

The residents of Champlain Park were shocked on Oct. 21, when machinery moved in to remove a pre-Confederation oak tree on a building site on Keyworth Avenue.

By the end of the day, even the stump of the massive burr oak was gone, said Catherine Shearer, whose lot backs onto the building site.

“There are old, old trees. They are not replaceable with a sapling,” said Shearer, who argues that urban trees are needed not just for their beauty, but also to cool homes in the summer and to absorb rainwater to prevent flooding.

Article content

“It’s just another nail in the coffin of the urban forest.”

The tree in the backyard of 193 Keyworth Ave. was one of the “Champlain oaks,” a descendant of the trees in an ancient forest that dated back to when the glaciers receded 10,000 years ago. The Anishinaabe called the shoreline of the Ottawa River just north of the neighbourhood Michiming, meaning the “place where the oaks grow.” In his 1686 journal, Capt. Pierre Chevalier de Troyes, who led the French capture of Moose Factory, Rupert House, and Fort Albany on Hudson Bay that year, noted walking through the oak forest.

As time went on, the area’s thin soil made it unsuitable for agriculture. Housing development only began in the early 1900s and decades later for some streets in Champlain Park. Lots tended to be large. Fragments of the ancient oak forest survived in the city.

“Walkable neighbourhoods have a tree canopy, and this is a special canopy,” Shearers said. “If you nibble away at that, you nibble away at the entire forest.”

Daniel Buckles and Debra Huron founded the Champlain Oaks Project in 2011 after another bur oak on Northwestern Avenue was cut down to allow for development. Thirteen years later, nothing has been built on that lot.

Article content

Article content

The Champlain Oaks Project catalogued 24 pre-Confederation oak trees in the neighbourhood, including the one at 193 Keyworth. Four of the oaks were later designated under Forests Ontario’s heritage tree project. They averaged 29 metres in height and 326 centimetres in circumference.

Bur oaks are among Ontario’s largest and long-lived trees, with a lifespan of 300 to 400 years. By Buckles’ count, of the 24 trees in the Champlain Oak Project, six have been lost since 2011, mostly to development. He feels that signals it’s time for the City of Ottawa to get serious about preserving significant urban trees.

In the urban parts of Ottawa, any tree with a trunk more than 30 centimetres in diameter at chest height is considered a “distinctive tree.” (In 2013, the 193 Keyworth bur oak was 90 centimtres in diameter.) However, in the city’s Official Plan, when considering impacts on the urban forest and trees, approvals and tree permits are not to be denied for development that conforms to the zoning by-law or for zoning by-law amendments, variances and consents that conform to the plan.

Article content

“The city recognizes the value of preserving and protecting our trees and is committed to a careful evaluation of the tree removal process, ensuring decisions are made with consideration of the community’s interests,” Jason Pollard, the city’s forestry section manager, said in a statement.

“Through the Tree Protection By-law and a range of other initiatives, the City ensures that both development needs and environmental priorities are balanced responsibly.”

An older house on the Keyworth property was demolished a few weeks ago to make way for a new house. The bur oak was removed to allow for the construction of a detached garage.

The permit to remove the privately-owned bur oak tree at 193 Keyworth was issued by the city, Pollard said.

“The permit was granted as the tree was within the footprint of an approved building permit for a new garage,” he said. “This is a standard process when development is approved and conforms to the city’s zoning by-law.”

Forestry Services worked closely with the developer to minimize the impact on the local tree canopy, Pollard said.

Article content

Plans were adjusted to protect and retain a significant Kentucky coffee-tree on the property. The coffee-tree grows naturally only in southwestern Ontario.

As a condition of the tree removal permit, the developer is required to plant three new trees, Pollard said.

Buckles said he was frustrated and disappointed by what happened. The city’s policies continue not to protect significant trees, he said. City trees have greater protection than those on private property.

“It’s like nothing has been learned,” said Buckles, who lived in the Champlain Park neighbourhood for 30 years before recently moving to Toronto.

“I’m just sad. Despite multiple iterations of the tree protection bylaw, the city is still unable or unwilling to provide significant protections to the tree canopy.”

In 2013, there was a submission to the city to create registry of heritage trees, similar to the registry of heritage buildings, followed with submissions every year for three years, Buckles said. That hasn’t happened, but it would allow for a longer timeline for feedback if a tree was identified for removal.

Article content

“It wouldn’t give permanent protection, but there would be a 30-day review period. It would allow city staff to consult with each other and with the applicant for a meaningful review. Maybe the builder is not fully aware of the options,” Buckles said.

Heather Pearl, who lives about a block away from the bur oak, said she had trusted that city tree protection policies would work.

However, the tree removal permit was posted too far away for people in the neighbourhood to be able to read it. The permit must be posted for seven days. By the time residents realized what was happening, it was too late, Pearl said.

“It was supposed to be posted prominently,” she said. “No one could see it. It should have been posted at the front of the property.”

It would be helpful if communities could be pulled into the discussion earlier in the process, Shearer said.

“I don’t think people understand the implications of tree loss,” she said. “There might have been a way to tweak the proposal. We’re not in the business of preventing people from having the house they want. But we want people to have the homes they need.”

Article content

Infill has been and will be in conflict with mature trees, said Paul Johanis, chair of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital. It’s especially concerning when trees are sacrificed for single-family homes, which do not increase housing density, he said.

The Greenspace Alliance will be asking the city to reconsider policies to protect significant trees.

“This tree was there in the days of Confederation. It had 150 years left to live,” Johanis said. “There has to be something that can be done to protect this kind of tree.”

Our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark our homepage and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed.

Article content