Twenty people shared their thoughts and concerns about proposed changes to the city’s tree preservation bylaw during a public meeting Wednesday.
The bylaw currently regulates tree removal on properties that are larger than half a hectare. The proposed changes would see the bylaw applied to all properties in the city regardless of their size.
The financial implications of the proposed changes were on the minds of many who spoke during the meeting.
If a tree is 25 centimetres/10 inches or more in diameter at breast height (four-and-a-half feet), a property owner would need a certified arborist to assess the tree to determine its risk to people or property before the tree could be removed.
If the tree is deemed to be dying or diseased, posing a risk to people or property, the owner could have it removed without a permit but would need to notify the city beforehand and provide the arborist’s report or a quote from the arborist.
If a tree is determined to be healthy and the property owner still wants it removed, a permit from the city would be required at a cost of $250. The proposed changes to the bylaw would require that the owner plant a replacement tree or pay a $350 fee that would go toward the city’s tree-planting program.
Susan Gibb said she supports an effort to increase Orillia’s tree canopy, but she doesn’t agree with changing the bylaw to make it apply to all properties.
“By taking away the size of the property … you are hitting every property in the City of Orillia,” she said.
“It’s not myself I’m concerned about. It is about our seniors and those that are at a different socioeconomic level than myself,” she added. “If you’re elderly and you can’t look after your own property … you are now potentially taking their income for a whole month, if they’re on Old Age Security, to take down a single tree because they’re no longer able to look after it.”
She worried the associated costs might lead some people to let trees decay or die.
“That really needs to be looked at from a socioeconomic position as well,” Gibb said, adding bylaws should only be in place as a “last resort” when other measures are not successful.
Larry Morley has lived on his current property for 40 years. While he brought up the financial burden that would come with the proposed changes, he also seemed insulted that they would indicate he doesn’t know what’s best for his own property.
“I resent being shamed into thinking it’s a sin to (remove trees) on my property,” he said.
He feels a bylaw isn’t the best way to address the city’s tree canopy at this time.
“It appears that the common and easy way to address this is with financial penalties. I think you need to educate,” he said, suggesting the city’s environmental advisory committee (EAC) undertake an ongoing public education campaign.
Morley also isn’t convinced there is a significant issue with private property owners removing healthy trees. He said it appears to be “a perceived problem” not based on any specific studies or data.
Michael Williams, chair of the EAC — which hosted Wednesday’s meeting — acknowledged there is “no data other than what we can cover in tree capture and doing some work and some studies on that.”
Some residents feel they’ve already contributed to the city’s tree inventory.
Ian Gordon said when he bought his property, there were no trees on it. He has since planted at least 11.
“I believe I’ve upheld my part of the bargain,” he said.
Tom Griffiths, a retired registered professional forester, suggested the city’s tree canopy — estimated to be at about 32 per cent — isn’t insignificant.
“We’re doing quite well, even without the bylaw,” he said.
He also felt the proposed bylaw changes would be an overreach, saying landowners own the trees on their properties.
“If he or she wants to remove them, it’s for a reason and often a very good one,” Griffiths said.
He recommended the city take part in Canada’s 2 Billion Trees program or Forest Ontario’s 50 Million Tree program rather than “waste time and dollars setting up a bureaucratic system” that will burden property owners.
Barb Shakell asked if she would need a permit to remove a tree whose roots have been causing damage to underground infrastructure on her property.
“We need to make sure that you’re not going to be required, in unusual or extenuating circumstances like yours, to go through a process like this,” Williams said, adding that would be taken into consideration before reporting back to city council.
Ruth Watt was among those in the meeting who expressed support of the overall intent of the bylaw changes.
“I think this is a brilliant proposal and well needed,” she said. “We need more tree coverage and I’m happy to support the proposal in principle.”
However, she wants the city to ensure property owners who have trees removed are provided with a list of appropriate trees to plant in their place. That’s what happens in Toronto and it should happen in Orillia, too, she said, “so trees are not being replaced by garbage trees.”
Williams said the EAC will be speaking with the city about what tree species will be acceptable.
Simon Hartley also supported the spirit of the proposed changes, but he wants the bylaw to “have some teeth”
“I think it would be a shame just to be flippant about this,” he said.
Valerie Powell had a similar opinion. She suggested the bylaw be enforced proactively rather than on a complaint basis.
Shawn Crawford, the city’s manager of legislative services, said the bylaw would be enforced on a complaint basis because the city doesn’t have the resources to dedicate to proactive enforcement.
As for the bylaw having teeth, Crawford noted, under the proposed changes, a first offence could result in a fine of up to $10,000 or $1,000 per tree — whichever is the greater value. Fines for subsequent offences could be “significantly higher,” he said.
Some people felt the city should put its money where its mouth is and lead by example.
Paul Raymond said four large trees have been cut down along Tecumseth Street in recent years. They required pruning, he said, but didn’t need to be removed.
“The city needs to step up as well because a lot of the canopy in the city is along streets,” he said.
He doesn’t have an issue with individual residents being asked to their part, but he feels the city should do its part, too.
Wes Reynolds was concerned about the city’s ability to keep up with a tree preservation bylaw like the one being proposed.
Reynolds, an International Society of Arboriculture-certified arborist, noted the city doesn’t have a staff arborist or forester.
“I do think tree bylaws have their place. I don‘t think the City of Orillia has the resources in place to have a tree bylaw,” he said.
He also suggested the city focus on trees on its own property.
“For them to switch gears and look at private trees is a little irresponsible,” he said, adding if the city wants to maintain or increase its tree canopy, “city trees are a good place to start.”
The meeting also heard from Dennis Bottero, president of Landen Homes, who has been a developer in town for 30 years.
He noted developers are required to plant at least one tree per home that is built. Bottero only builds within city limits, so many of the properties he develops do not have many or any trees to begin with.
He has built housing on the former David H. Church school property on James Street. That site had 12 trees on it when he bought it. As a result of his development, it will have more than 70.
“If anything, I have added to the canopy,” he said.
Bottero would like to see the $350 fee for removing healthy trees be used to increase the number of trees or “upgrade the calibre of trees” on the property in question.
“Other than that, I am fully endorsing protecting the canopy and increasing it if possible,” he said.
Williams thanked everyone who took part in the meeting and assured them their feedback would be considered while the committee and city staff prepare a report to council.
Those who didn’t take part in the public meeting can still have their say. Comments will be accepted until midnight March 31. They can be emailed to [email protected].
There is also a survey people can fill out. The survey, and more information about the draft tree preservation bylaw, can be found here.
