A large treed area in Burnaby's South Slope neighbourhood has disappeared since last spring.
The owner of the large lot at 4793 Marine Dr. applied to subdivide it into five lots in 2009, according to the city's landscape development technician, Geoff Gooderham.
Last June, the new owner was granted a tree-cutting permit to clear the property of 97 trees.
The NOW was informed about the cleared property by Marilyn Stainer, who lives in the area and thought the trees must've been cleared without a permit, since the property had only sold that summer, she said in an email.
It has greatly changed the landscape of the neighbourhood, Stainer said in a followup interview.
"Now we can see all the way up to Nelson Avenue (from Marine Drive)," she said. "It was such a shock."
There has been a lot of new development in the area, Stainer said.
But while Stainer found the loss of greenspace to be disconcerting, she doesn't think a stronger tree bylaw is needed, she said.
She has a few evergreens and holly trees on her own property, but worries that restrictions on cutting down trees could be potentially devastating for homeowners in a windstorm.
"I wouldn't want to be told I'm not allowed to cut down my own trees," Stainer said, adding she does try to be environmentally friendly on her own property, including using a clothesline to dry clothing.
The City of Burnaby is currently reviewing its tree bylaw, with public consultations taking place in the spring, and a final report to council expected next fall.
Burnaby's tree bylaw from 1996 restricts property owners from cutting down large trees (larger than 20.3 cm in diameter) three months prior to applying for a demolition permit for a building on a property, and one year afterward.
Large trees that residents cut down are supposed to be replaced with a new tree, according to the bylaw, though the replacement of trees isn't always a 1: 1 ratio.
None of the trees could be saved on the Marine Drive property, according to Gooderham, because of an unfortunate combination of factors.
"We always hope to be able to find trees we can keep," he said. "I would've expected we'd be able to find some here."
He went out to the site several times, he added, to identify high-quality trees and look at the subdivision plans in relation to the placement of the trees.
Only 12 were in what the city considers good condition, he said, and most were inside the footprint of where the five new houses are slated to go, or within the area where the road needs to be widened.
The site is also on a slope, which will require a lot of digging, he pointed out, and that would damage root systems.
"The land owner is legally entitled to develop the property," Gooderham said, adding that the city cannot refuse a tree-cutting permit once a property has been approved for development.
Many of the trees on the property were from an old orchard that had gone to seed, and there were some large hedges that had gone wild, he said.
But Gooderham acknowledged it could be disconcerting for residents, as the area had looked like a large, green park, he said.
"There was only a handful (of trees) that were really good," he said, "despite the fact that it was so green."
The city has criteria for what constitutes a highquality tree, according to Gooderham. For evergreens, the tree needs to have one stem, and no rot.
For deciduous trees, they have to be solid and likely to have a long life span, he said, adding if a tree doesn't look likely to last more than 10 to 15 years, it doesn't fit the criteria.
"We're looking for safe, healthy trees that will last a long time," he said.
While there were a few of these on the property on Marine Drive - including an oak, a sequoia, and a few beech trees - they were badly located, according to Gooderham.
"It would've been great to save them, but they were all located inside the (building) footprints," he said. "We can't keep trees where some person's living room is supposed to be."
The owner will be required to plant replacement trees, Gooderham said, but the amount and type has not yet been decided.
