Local environmentalists and residents are banding together to fight a potential development off Yonge Street in Midland.
Ken MacDonald, who sits on the Midland Penetanguishene Field Naturalists’ executive, says the development near Little Lake threatens both the town’s natural heritage and an existing wetland.
“Naturalists all over Ontario have been greatly concerned about the diminishing protection for our local wetlands,” says MacDonald, who's also the club's Ontario Nature representative. "Our club, the MPFN, feels we cannot stand idly by as another wetland is threatened by development.”
A meeting is slated for 6 p.m. tonight in Midland council chambers to gather public input regarding the proposed Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments to redesignate the lands from Greenlands to Strategic Growth Area and allow the development proposed by Little Lake Communities, a project of the Delbrook Group.
According to Tim Tully, a well-known local biologist and naturalist who lives near the proposed development, more than 80% of the subject lands (approximately 9.4 acres or 3.8 hectares) is mature deciduous Sugar Maple-American Beech-Red Oak forest with trees of old-growth age.
Tully, who submitted a 14-page report to council about the proposal as a private citizen "with an informed professional background and informed knowledge on the natural heritage of the immediate local area," notes that it’s also one of the last significant forests within town limits and meets the criteria for a Significant Woodland.
“The forest has significant heritage values and supports a suite of forest interior birds including Wood Thrush, Barred Owl, numerous warblers and other songbirds,” Tully says. "The myth of creating new woodlands through plantings and the enhancement of existing woodland habitat or by removing invasive species is a misleading distraction.
"The diversity of old growth forests cannot be created or replaced overnight. It is time to preserve this small functional remnant of significant natural heritage within the Town limits and under no circumstances settle for a compensating shadow of a forest elsewhere else in Simcoe County."
In 2007, the Severn Sound Environmental Association classified the immediate bordering wetland as provincially significant while the development would feature buildings within 30 metres of the wetland.
"A minuscule 30-metre setback from a provincially significant wetland is too large a risk to endanger natural heritage features and function considering the scale and proximity to the proposed development envelope," Tully says.
MacDonald says he wonders if there’s an analogy in this case to the provincial government's Greenbelt scandal where land initially set aside for conservation purposes by the municipality was “arbitrarily opened up for development?”
MacDonald says council members have a duty to protect the community’s natural heritage rather than allow developers “to exploit it.”
As well, the opponents find it interesting to note, that while the town brags about being recognized nationally by Communities in Bloom in 2001, the award criteria “is not just the number of pretty gardens in the town but also the number of natural heritage areas and how well they are maintained and preserved.”
MacDonald says he wonders how many of those natural heritage areas Midland has lost to development since receiving the award 23 years ago.
“Little Lake is one of Midland's brightest shining crown jewels and it has recently been beset by development on all sides,” MacDonald says.
“Blue green algae has recently been reported in the lake and degrading water quality is well documented. This wetland at its western edge is very important to the overall health of the lake.”
Tully says the natural heritage system surrounding Little Lake delivers key ecological services and is of primary importance in maintaining the lake’s water quality while enhancing water storage. It also serves to mitigate flooding and provides an important area of groundwater recharge, he adds.
"There will be no functional woodland left on the property as a result of the proposed physical building envelope which would permanently alter, destroy or degrade the subject property’s natural heritage features and functions," Tully says.
"The proponent’s ecological consultants may have misinterpreted the data and overreached in their conclusions and did not effectively prove that no negative impacts would occur on the subject property, including the impact on Species at Risk, notably five endangered bat species. Additional significant species of wildlife concern including Species at Risk were not captured in consultant’s field investigations which greatly increases the properties natural heritage significance."
