INTRODUCTION
At the end of May, following an initial round of public consultations, the Township posted its revised proposed site alteration and tree preservation bylaws on its website: https://www.thearchipelago.on.ca/p/site-alteration-
Follow-up public consultation meetings have now been scheduled for 2-4pm on August 13 (an in-person meeting at Pointe-au-Baril Community Centre) and for 6-8pm on August 22 (Zoom meeting). You must register on the Township website to participate.
The bylaws prohibit site alteration (blasting, removing or importing fill, etc.) and the removal of any naturally-occurring vegetation (now only within 7.5 metres of the shore), with certain exceptions, unless the Township grants an exemption. In areas more than 7.5 metres from shore, the tree preservation bylaw now prohibits only “clear cutting”. As before, if a landowner wants an exception beyond the ones listed, there is a formal application process for exemptions, but now applications are made to a Township official, not directly to Council. Violators would be subject to fines, stop-work orders and/or remediation orders.
KEY OBSERVATIONS
The original draft site alteration bylaw raised few concerns in the original consultation round and has been streamlined further. This bylaw will not impact landowners except during construction and even then in relatively few circumstances. It should be easy and inexpensive for the Township to administer.
With the tree preservation bylaw, it is much more difficult to develop good regulations that achieve environmental protection, administrative efficiency, equitable enforcement and protection of landowner rights. Tree/vegetation removal happens in the ordinary course of property maintenance, not just during construction. It is much less permanent than site alteration. Specialized professionals are required to evaluate the health of a tree or other vegetation and the impact of removing it.
The revised tree preservation by-law prohibits the removal of naturally occurring vegetation, including trees of any size, from land within 7.5 metres/25 feet of the high-water mark unless there is an applicable exception or the owner receives an exemption. There are now minimal restrictions (other than against clear cutting) for trees and vegetation more than 7.5 metres away from the high-water mark.
Many reasons people would want to remove trees or other plants are covered under the listed exceptions, so that no application for an exemption is required. Some are not. For example, these are not listed exceptions:
In these cases, the owner would have to apply for an exemption.
The proposed bylaws are intended to preserve our unique visual environment, but do not make a distinction between densely wooded areas and rock barren landscapes (e.g. small outer islands) where removing any tree has a significant visual impact.
Our understanding is that the Township had anticipated hiring by-law officers to enforce the new by-laws. We do not know whether this is still the case, or how many would be required. Presumably, the revised site alteration bylaw could be managed and enforced with minimal effort. With the tree preservation bylaw, this could also be true, but it seems that this might require further changes to the bylaw so that there are very few exemption requests, violations or requests for clarifications. For perspective, the cost of adding two by-law enforcement officers might be about 2% of annual Township property tax revenues (about $9 million annually).
KEY ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED SITE ALTERATION BYLAW
This bylaw would prohibit “site alteration”, defined as “a change in elevation from existing grade or finished grade resulting from (i) the placing or dumping of fill; (ii) the removal of topsoil; (iii) placing, dumping, removal, or blasting of rock; or (iv) any other action that alters the grade of land including the altering in any way of a natural drainage course on a site”.
There are specific exemptions in Section 5 of the bylaw. These have been broadened slightly and include site alterations associated with the following:
The Bylaws do not appear to prohibit the construction of retaining walls.
The Manager may grant exemptions where there is no adverse impact on drainage, “any natural heritage feature” or “the natural environment of the area”.
In the revised draft, a landowner may appeal any adverse decision by the Manager to Council within 30 days (or failure by the Manager to issue a decision within 45 days).
KEY ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION BYLAW
This draft bylaw would prohibit “clear-cutting” (previously, the destruction/injury of mature trees, with a trunk 6 inches/15cm or more in diameter) and, within 25 feet/ 7.5 metres of the high-water mark, the destruction of any native shoreline vegetation (including trees of any size) unless there is a Section 5 exemption, or unless the Township Manager (previously Council) grants relief.
Specific exemptions (Section 5) are similar to those in the site alteration bylaw and do not require an application or approval: minor landscaping, maintenance of existing landscaping or buildings, the construction of buildings, access roads from a public roadway, pathways up to 2 metres in width (previously only paths from door to dock), solar panels (a new exemption), plus additional exemptions for tree removal following severe damage resulting from natural disasters, weather events, insects, disease or wildlife; and actions “in accordance with good arboricultural practices” or “in accordance with good forestry practices”.
Applications for exemptions other than those specified would require a formal application, including an application fee and professional arborist report. Newly added language in the bylaw requires the applicant for an exemption to demonstrate that the proposed actions, among other things, “will not have a significant impact on fish or wildlife habitat” and “will not be in contravention of the Species at Risk Act, the Endangered Species Act of the Migratory Birds Convention Act”. Like the revision to the draft Site Alteration Bylaw, the revised Tree Preservation Bylaw would entitle the owner to appeal to Council within 30 days of an adverse ruling by the manager, or within 45 days of no ruling.
Summary above provided by SSCA President Glen Campbell
Sans Souci and Copperhead Association