Staff Review of the Interim Tree Bylaw Working Groups Final - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Staff Review of the Interim Tree Bylaw Working Group’s Final Recommendations

May 27, 2019

Michelle McGuire, Manager of Current Planning

• 1. Update since last Council meeting
• 2. Recap of the issue
• 3. Staff analysis of the working group’s core

recommendations

• 4. Staff recommendations

Agenda

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Mar 5, 2018: Draft ITBWG report presented at Council

Meeting

• Apr-Jun 2018: Refined recommendations
• The Working Group reviewed resident, staff, and Council input to

the initial Report, refined recommendations to reflect input and added implementation plan.

• Jun 2018-Apr 2019: Staff review
• May 8, 2019: Working group meeting
• Overview of staff analysis and recommendations
• May 27, 2019: Council consideration of updated Interim

Tree By-law

Update

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Interim Tree Bylaw adopted in response to community

concern for the protection of trees on private lands partly due to the accelerated level of development.

• The Interim Tree Bylaw Working Group was formed to assist

in the development and consideration of a permanent tree bylaw that balances tree management best practices and community interests.

• WG identified maintaining current tree canopy as a primary goal.

Recap of the issue

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• 11 core recommendations proposed
• Key recommendation requires a minimum number of trees

required based on lot size, different regulations for:

• New and redevelopment lots
• Existing lots
• Mandatory self-reporting
• Sets hedge height maximum
• Solar installation considerations
• Tree canopy survey
• Additional recommendations support the health and ecological

value of existing trees.

• Staff reviewed the recommendations and identified key

issues and opportunities.

WG Bylaw Recommendations

Staff analysis of Core Bylaw Recommendations

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

WG Recommendation: Minimum number of trees required based on lot size.

• Tree defined as a minimum 10cm at DBH.

New or redevelopment lots

Example: Average RS5 lot: 670m2 5 trees required Existing: 8 trees of varying sizes After development: 5 trees 5 cm

Developer can remove all trees replant with 5 small trees

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

WG Recommendation: Minimum number of trees required based on lot size.

• Tree defined as a minimum 10cm at DBH.
• No permit required for tree removal down to minimum number required.
• An additional “exemption” tree may be removed for each subsequent three-year

period without permit.

• Replacement tree required for tree removal below minimum number except

when the “exemption” tree is available.

Existing lots

Example: Typical RS5 lot: 670m2 Existing: 8 trees of varying sizes Minimum 5 trees required but can remove 1 tree every 3 years down to zero without replacement

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

WG Recommendation: Mandatory self-reporting required in advance when removing trees that don’t need a permit on existing lots. Considerations: – Requires some level of staff involvement (monitoring to ensure compliance, penalties for non-compliance). Responding to complaints. – No ability for staff to confirm number of trees on a lot meet minimum number. – Potential privacy issues.

Mandatory self-reporting

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

WG Recommendations: Maximum hedge height of 4.5m and consideration for solar energy installations Considerations: ‾ Involves the District in enforcement and neighbour disputes. ‾ Puts one property owner’s rights (views & sunlight) over another (privacy, natural vegetation, noise buffer etc.). ‾ Enforcement could pose a significant financial burden on property owners and significantly damage or kill existing mature hedges / tree rows. ‾ 4.5m max hedge height may not maintain privacy on sloping sites. ‾ Potential loss of neighbourhood character. ‾ No grandfathering of mature hedges is not consistent with other bylaws. ‾ Hedges on municipal land may be in conflict with the bylaw.

Maximum Hedge Height & Solar Installation Considerations

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

WG Recommendation: Tree survey completed to establish a tree canopy baseline on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis. Subsequent surveys recommended at regular intervals (at least

• nce every three years).

Considerations: – Will enable current tree canopy comparisons with other municipalities. – Will verify the ongoing efficacy of the new tree bylaw in maintaining tree canopy cover and to provide a future basis for any adjustments to the bylaw as required to maintain canopy cover. – Cost (approximately $20,000 every 3 years). Budget already approved by Council.

Tree canopy survey

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Currently staff do not have the tree survey (LiDAR) data to

understand the existing tree canopy.

• Circumstantial evidence based on the rapid pace of

development (in recent years) and storm water management plans suggests that the tree canopy is likely decreasing.

• In the absence of data, staff recommend reporting back with

long term recommendations once the tree survey data has been obtained and analysed. As well, staff recommend updating the current Interim Tree By-law with changes based

• n the Working Group recommendations that support the

health and ecological value of existing trees.

Primary Staff Conclusions

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Conduct LiDAR tree canopy survey
• Strengthen the existing Interim Tree Bylaw by incorporating the following

ITBWG recommendations supporting the health and ecological value of trees:

• Expand the list of protected trees to include additional native species

identified by the Working Group, as well as trees on difficult terrain, retained trees, replacement trees, and bird nesting trees.

• Include heritage trees and trees within the riparian areas in the protected

trees list to clarify these existing requirements

• Include protection of neighbour trees for redevelopment sites
• Add replacement tree requirements for redevelopment sites (i.e. removal
• f trees shown to be within a building footprint)
• Define common pruning and maintenance techniques and clarify definition
• f “hazardous”

Staff Recommendations

STAFF REVIEW OF ITBWG FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Introduce a fee for tree removal permits
• Develop educational guidelines based on the Working Group

recommendations.

• Report back to Council once tree survey data is obtained and analysed

regarding the efficacy of the Interim Tree Bylaw in maintaining tree canopy cover, with an Urban Forest Management Plan and any relevant policy or by- law updates as required.

Staff Recommendations

Thank you Questions?