Urban Tree Bylaw Community Engagement Overview Agenda Project - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Niagara-on-the-Lake Urban Tree Bylaw

Community Engagement Overview

Agenda

Project Background Engagement Activities What We Heard Questions

Project Background

Project Background

 On June 5, 2017 the Community and Development

Advisory Committee recommended that:

• Council direct staff to hire a facilitator to engage in a public

consultation process to determine the need for a Private Tree By- law.

 Lura Consulting was retained to conduct this

public consultation.

Potential By-law – Where it Would Apply

Engagement Activities

Community Engagement

 February to April of 2018  Over 600 residents and stakeholders engaged  Public Engagement Activities:

▪ Online Survey

▪ February 19 to April 19, 2018 – 358 responses

▪ Online Comments

▪ 43 comments posted

▪ Open House

▪ April 12 (2:00pm to 4:00pm, 6:00pm to 8:00pm) – 200 attendees

Community Engagement

 Stakeholder Interviews:

• Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
• Niagara Homebuilders Association
• Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro
• Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy
• Niagara-on-the-Lake Municipal Heritage Committee
• Niagara Chamber of Commerce
• Niagara-on-the-Lake Urban Design Committee
• City Staff
• Queenston Residents Association

What We Heard:

Online Engagement & Open House

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 Should the Town consider introducing a by-law to preserve

and protect trees on private property within the Town’s urban areas?

 Yes – 88.5%  No – 9%  Unsure – 2.5%

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 The removal of trees on private property should only be authorized

by a permit, with some exceptions, issued under a by-law.

 Strongly Agree – 69.8%  Somewhat Agree – 18.7%  Somewhat Disagree – 2.5%  Strongly Disagree – 8.1%  Not Sure – 0.9%

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 The approved permit should be posted publicly before the tree is

removed.

 Strongly Agree – 71.5%  Somewhat Agree – 16.5%  Somewhat Disagree – 2.7%  Strongly Disagree – 8.3%  Not Sure – 0.9%

* Some comments made regarding the cost of hiring arborists and who would be responsible for the bill.

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 The approved permit should be posted publicly before the tree is

removed.

 Strongly Agree – 60.9%  Somewhat Agree – 17.6%  Somewhat Disagree – 7.2%  Strongly Disagree – 11.5%  Not Sure – 2.7%

* Some comments regarding the dependence of where the tree was, how many trees were being removed and the state of the tree, as well as publicly posting

• nline rather than physically.

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 If a tree is approved for removal on private property, a

replacement tree (or trees) should be planted on the property, or another location approved by the town.

 Strongly Agree – 66.4%  Somewhat Agree – 20.2%  Somewhat Disagree – 4.1%  Strongly Disagree – 7.5%  Not Sure – 1.8%

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 The by-law should include penalties to encourage compliance with

the by-law.

 Strongly Agree – 81%  Somewhat Agree – 9.5%  Somewhat Disagree – 1.6%  Strongly Disagree – 7.2%  Not Sure – 0.6%

Comments from open house participants:

• The penalties must be strong in order to

change behaviour;

• Without penalties there will be little/no

compliance; and

• Fees should not be a cost of

development.

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 There should be an appeal process if a permit to remove a tree is

not approved.

 Strongly Agree – 48.7%  Somewhat Agree – 36.6%  Somewhat Disagree – 5%  Strongly Disagree – 7.4%  Not Sure – 2.3%

Comments from open house participants:

• Questions as to who appeals would be

directed to;

• The appeal process should be for factual

and rational arguments; and

• The permit process should be sufficient

(opposed to appeals).

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 Which expectations are reasonable for the Town to consider as part

• f the potential by-law?

 Tree Health – 90.6%  Tree Size – 63%  Tree Species – 58.4%  Tree Location – 32.5%  Number of Trees – 25.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tree location

• n the property

Tree size Number of trees Tree species Tree health Other

Percentage of Respondants

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 Should the exceptions be verified through the application process?  Yes – 82.6%  No – 8.4%  Not Sure – 9%

Respondents who attended the public meeting commented on the question. The key themes from their comments were that an expert or arborist should be involved, and it should be a part of the process. Other respondents commented that there should be no exceptions.

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 How should the Town encourage the replacement of trees removed

from private property?

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Require the replacement of similar native tree(s) from an approved list Provide incentives to promote replanting larger, more mature trees Accept donations or cash-in-lieu to replant tree(s) in other locations

Average Ranking

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 How should the Town encourage the replacement of trees removed

from private property?

 Accept donations or cash-in-lieu to replant tree(s) in other locations –

First Choice – 9.3%

 Provide incentives to promote replanting larger

, more mature trees –First Choice - 32.2%

 Require the replacement of similar native tree(s) from an approved list –

First Choice - 70.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Require the replacement of similar native tree(s) from an approved list Provide incentives to promote replanting larger, more mature trees Accept donations or cash-in-lieu to replant tree(s) in other locations

Percentage of Respondants

1 2 3

Ranking

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 How should the cost of protecting trees, including administration,

enforcement and education of the potential by-law be covered?

 Shared by all tax payers – 49.6%  Through fees for removal permits and/or inspections – 42.6%  Other – 7.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Respondants

Shared by all tax payers Through fees for removal permits and/or inspections Other

What We Heard: Online Survey & Open House

 How should this information be shared with community members,

specifically property owners and developers?

 Town Website – 92.2%  Newspaper – 79.1%  Social Media – 56.7%  Public Meeting – 55.6%  Councillor’s Office – 33%  Radio – 16.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Town website Councillor's Office Newspaper Radio Public Meeting Social Media Other

Percent of Respondants

Respondent Profile –Online Survey

 Place of Residence

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Glendale Old Town Queenston Rural Niagara-on-the-Lake

• St. Davids

Virgil

Respondent Profile –Online Survey

 Age

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

18-29 30-49 50-69 70+

What We Heard:

Stakeholder Interviews

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Should the Town consider introducing a by-law to preserve and protect

trees on private property within the Town’s urban areas?

• The majority of stakeholders said the City should have a by-law to preserve

trees on private property

• A by-law is seen as a way to protect the environmental, economic and

aesthetic benefits that trees provide

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 What are the pros and cons of introducing a Private Tree By-Law?

Pros:

• Maintain and protect canopy
• Alignment with the strategic plan
• Prevent developers from

clearcutting

• Promote biodiversity
• Enhance quality of life
• Improve neighbourhood

aesthetic/increase property values

• Improve water quality and

quantity

• Improve air quality
• Lead to home energy savings

Cons:

• Program cost
• Property rights
• Enforcement
• Disruption to utility corridor

maintenance

• Unreasonable expectations

regarding tree maintenance

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Should an inventory of urban trees be completed to inform the Town’s

understanding of its urban tree canopy?

• Pro – inventory should be completed to track canopy and ensure trees are

not being cut down without a permit.

• Pro – part of asset management.
• Con – Time consuming and unnecessary.
• Town could put the by-law in place and then focus on tracking its urban

canopy.

• Detail of such an inventory would need to be determined.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Permits, issued under a by-law, are used by several other municipalities to

regulate the removal of trees on private property. Are permits an appropriate option in Niagara-on-the-Lake?

• Agreement that a permit process should be developed.
• Should be clearly worded and easy-to-understand.
• Informed by other municipal examples.
• Allow for a blanket permit for certain organizations.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 What criteria or conditions should the potential by-law include to

determine if a tree (or trees) should be approved for removal?

• A pre-defined list of criteria should be created and should consider species,

size, health, and proximity to existing structure and utilities.

• Replacement requirements.
• Tree removal approval if inhibiting house expansion or change to a

residence.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Should the potential by-law require a site visit with a qualified arborist or

forester to ensure by-law conditions are met?

• An arborist or forester should be present to ensure conditions are met.
• Hire a dedicated arborist as a member of town staff.
• Have a list of pre-qualified arborist residents who can act as consultants as

needed.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Are penalties needed to ensure compliance with the potential by-law?

Penalties deemed necessary (e.g., fines).

• Mixed opinion on fine amount.
• Some said severe fines.
• Some said fine amount on a case-by-case basis.
• Fines and penalties should be paired with education.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Are there any other conditions or requirements the Town should consider?

• Determine if neighbouring properties can request a permit.
• Should neighbouring properties be made aware of applications?
• Review by-laws from other municipalities.
• Ensure that a by-law wouldn’t contradict the town’s other by-laws.
• Determine extenuating circumstances.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Given that the goal of the potential by-law is to maintain a healthy urban

tree canopy, should private property owners replace trees approved for removal?

• Tree replacement process should be established.
• Replacement trees should meet a minimum caliper size to support survival.
• The species of replacement trees should be recommended from an

approved list to support biodiversity.

• Replace trees with at least two new trees.
• Allow replacement trees to be planted on private or public property.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 What tools and resources are needed by the Town to implement a potential

Private Tree By-Law?

• Knowledge from qualified arborists and staff training.
• Funds to hire arborists and to train staff.
• Public funds for a tree replacement program an appeals process and

communications materials.

• Implement by-law through site plan controls.
• Conduct a tree inventory.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 What tools and resources are needed by property owners to comply with a

potential Private Tree By-Law?

• Educational resources to address the by-law, permit process, penalties, and

the value of trees.

• Education materials in the form of a website, workshops with arborists,

public information sessions, printed materials, walking tours and an information hotline.

• Communicate through community champions such as the rotary,

horticultural society and real estate offices.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 Are there other municipal tools or mechanisms that should be considered

to encourage the preservation and protection of trees on private property (e.g., Official Plan policies, etc.)?

• Review the existing language regarding tree preservation in the Official

Plan.

• Add language regarding tree preservation into Community Plans.
• The by-law should be clear and easy-to-understand.

What We Heard: Stakeholder Interviews

 How should the cost of protecting trees, including administration,

enforcement and education of the potential by-law be covered?

• Cost recovery through permit fees.
• Cost recovery shared by taxpayers.
• A combination of permit fees and taxes.
• Permit fees should not be onerous.
• Source funds from parking and the hotel industry through taxes.

Questions