…while others argue it is “illogical” and lot size does matter

October 9, 2013 · 0 Comments

By Brock Weir

Should a property owner with a quarter-acre property and a handful of trees have the same restrictions as someone with two or more acres and a large swath of woodland when it comes to tree cutting?

That’s the question asked by some Councillors last week in opposing a draft bylaw imposing tougher restrictions on property owners – from homeowners to golf courses – which was branded “irrational.”

If Council adopts the new tree protection bylaw, property owners across the board would have the number of trees on their properties they would be allowed to remove without a permit reduced from four to two. This, argued Mayor Geoffrey Dawe and Councillors such as Michael Thompson, should be given further consideration.

Older areas in town, for instance, are less dense and are likely to have greater numbers of trees on their lots, argued Councillor Michael Thompson. This, he said, is illogical in applying a bylaw.

“You need to take into consideration the area and apply some sort of calculation so that the rules are applied fairly across the board,” he said. “To look at it from the residential versus the commercial sector, the rules need to be applied similarly and to just limit the number is the wrong principle. You need to find the right calculation and move forward.”

This was a view supported by Mayor Dawe. Throwing out a standard lot size in Aurora of 5,500 feet, Mayor Dawe said his lot is four times that size, yet each lot would be subject to the same standard of two trees without a permit.

“I am going to suggest that Mr. Stronach probably has at least 200 acres in his estate and he can take down two trees,” he said. “How does this make any sense? It makes no sense at all. People will plant their own trees. I planted all of my own and now I have to come to Council because I didn’t do a very good job in planting them, they are too close together and they need to come down.”

Asking how staff arrived at that number, Al Downey, Director of Parks and Recreation, said that was a fairly standard number shared by other municipalities. It also achieved their objective of making a more “restrictive” bylaw. Developing a formula to calculate how many trees could be removed from a property based on lot size would be difficult not only to come up with, but also to impose, he added.

“Trying to rationalize the number of trees with the size of the property is not something we felt was going to be appropriate and we felt the number of trees was important rather than relating that to a particular size.”
Mayor Dawe however was undeterred.

“Would Council support a flat rate for property taxes across Town”, he asked “tongue in cheek.” “I see no rationalization for this and I can’t support it.”

Councillor Thompson said he agreed and added that this situation, as well as restricting golf courses to 10 trees per year without a permit was methodology that was neither “sound nor fair.”

Indeed, this restriction on golf courses took up a significant chunk of last week’s debate. From Councillor Evelyn Buck’s perspective, golf courses are businesses and trees are a key part of that business. As an “essential part of that operation”, that should be given further consideration, she said. Councillors were put at the table by residents to exercise their judgement, she added, and this bylaw would restrict voters from exercising their own.

“Who is it that owns a property that doesn’t understand the value of a mature tree?” she asked. “Real estate is advertised and one of the biggest assets is a mature garden and trees. Who is it that wants to go out with an axe and chop it down for the fun of it? Nobody with any sense.

“I don’t think I was sent here to create restrictions for my neighbours and the people that live in this Town, to take away their right to exercise their own judgement on their property. I don’t think that is why I am here. I am here to protect their rights to exercise their own judgement and particularly in the management of their own property. If this Town makes it impossible for golf course operators to conduct their business in the best way they know how, Beacon Hall might very well become another development.”

Also opposing the bylaw on this front was Councillor John Abel. Going back to earlier arguments made in the evening by Parks Manager Jim Tree that golf course superintendents opposed any restrictions on their property, he said “restrictions” alone were a reason not to go forward.

“It is restricting our businesses, it is restricting our homeowners and I know it is a feel-good thing to say, ‘Let’s save the trees!’ but I want to be practical on this,” he said. “I want a bit more common sense on this whole situation. It is almost like a Mommie Dearest situation where I am doing this for your own good. ‘I am putting all these restrictions on you, but it is for your own good.’

“All you have to do is look around a golf course and see these are responsible people with trees. The reason why we’re doing this is for one golf course. There is no reason to set upon this kind of bylaw. I don’t think our residents understand the implications of us approving this until they go and cut a tree down.”

Added Mayor Dawe: “We were put here to form rational decisions and I don’t think this meets that particular test. I object to the concept that we need a more restrictive bylaw and I don’t see how this is going to help us one little bit.