The first draft of a tree by-law one is being discussed at Monday (12/16) Council.The by-law targets those trees not covered by the York Region Forest Preservation By-law which addresses woodlands over 1 hectare in size and those trees in smaller wood lots (.2 to 1 hectare) which King delegated to YR to protect; in other words, this new bylaw addresses trees on private property which are not a wood lot but rather are single trees or multiple trees sparsely distributed on a property. The rationale for the new by-law is simple: we want to maintain the existing tree canopy because of its role in flood control, carbon dioxide sequestering, providing shade. Also trees add beauty to the landscapes and streetscapes in our villages. I am very pleased we are finally addressing this gap in our regulations.
You can read the draft by-law here in the Staff Report. As explained in the report this is not the only time you can provide input; but this is your opportunity to provide input early in the process. Additional input is being collected from numerous sources. Prior to bringing a draft back to Council Staff will be collecting input from various sources; and will then publish notice of a draft by-law as is required. Target is to bring it back to Council 2/24.
Re tree by law…I see this more of a fund raiser than a control on cutting down trees on residential lots. The enforcement will also be a challenge. I will claim my tree was less than 20 centimetres and if not, the lower trunk will be removed before any inspector can be assigned to check out the tree…
About 8 years ago I started on a program of removing five massive poplar trees . They were a hazard and a mess. Did one a year with a professional knocking it down and I took over using Miller recycle facility. Two years ago removed a dying pine that was on property line with new monster home.
With all of this preamble, I would like to see a one tree a year exemption. Agree there needs to be a review of massive changes but in reality what will happen if I want to take down 5 trees and am told no… I can assure you they will each be dead or dying in a years time and we are back to the regulation being a fund raiser and not a control.
Thanks Fred for your perspective & experiences with dealing with trees in the village. For sure I am not interested in creating a fund raiser! I am looking to build awareness about the total value of a tree and accordingly to reduce the number of trees being cut. And for those that are still cut down, I hope it will at least be done with real understanding of the consequences.
Re Tree Bylaw:
I am very much in favour of preserving trees and responsible tree management. Within the last two years, we have planted 18 new evergreens at great cost.
However, I have a major problem with Paragraph 19: Replacement of Trees.
To demand replacement of a tree that has reached its end of life either through age or disease, either in kind or monetarily to the Township, is preposterous. The cost of professional removal of a dead tree of the specified or larger size is very considerable to the property owner. To then punish the owner with further costs for the loss of a tree through no fault of his, and to top it off within a Township specified timeframe, is totally unacceptable. This paragraph must make exception for trees that have suffered a natural death. Furthermore, do I get credit for trees planted within a reasonable timeframe (say 3 to 5 years)before removal of a dead tree? And if not, why not?