Qualicum Beach residents were given an opportunity to provide input on the town’s tree bylaw, enacted in 2023.
Bylaw No. 725 is geared towards managing the town’s natural tree canopy and preserve native trees for future generatations. It regulates the cutting down of protected trees and provides a permit system to enable tree cutting and alteration under specific conditions.
However, the bylaw, according to town planner Luke Sales, does impact property owners and residents who may want to remove a protected tree from their properties.
The town held a committee of the whole meeting on April 17 to collect the residents’ views and concerns about the bylaw a year after it was implemented. Council plans to review the bylaw, based on the feedback.
Some residents expressed opposition to the bylaw while others endorsed it but want it reviewed to make it fair and consistent.
“The tree bylaw was adopted by council with the intention of allowing property owners to manage the trees on their own property with some leeway and not be too strict,” said Sales. “There are municipalities in B.C. where the tree protection bylaws are very strict but at the same time, it does provide a degree of oversight and established a system where the town can manage the town’s tree canopy moving forward.”
Property owners on residential lots are permitted to remove one tree every two years without permits. If trees will be removed every two years, a permit would be required, also for certain types of trees.
Owners of large properties in the agricultural sector are exempt from the bylaw. But for those large properties in the residential zones, owners are allowed to remove one tree per acre annually.
Rachel Hamling, who works for a land development consultant, said while the bylaw has many positives aspects it also has detrimental components that impact the affordability and feasibility of development. She cited an example of a residential project currently in the works that would require removal of 110 trees for the purpose of building roads, as well as other infrastructure like water and sanitary sewer lines upgrades and storm water detention areas.
Hamling said there are no exemptions for installation of roads, services, driveways or building footprints. The owners have two options. One, to pay the town $1,000 per replacement tree. Hamlin indicated every one tree cut requires two replacement trees and with 110 trees to be removed to service the lots, the total amount the town would collect is $220,000.
The second option is to plant two trees for every one removed and that equates to 220 trees that need to be replaced but it would require a refundable deposit of $700 per replacement tree before a permit is issued. Hamling said this would cost $154,000 that would be refunded after two years provided all the 220 trees are all in good health.
It’s a process that would go on indefinitely, said Hamling, because if some of the tree dies, which she added is very likely to happen, they would need to make another refundable deposit to replace the trees.
“So this case study demonstrates a significant financial burden this tree protection bylaw will place on homeowners or during development,” said Hamling, who suggested the bylaw add exemptions for the construction of roads, pathways, services and other infrastructures.
Scott Rodway calls the tree protection regulation a bad bylaw and wants it rescinded.
“It’s ill-conceived and misguided,” said Rodway. “It adversely impacts on the ability of homeowners and property owners to fire safe and fire smart their homes and properties. That is not dealt with in the bylaw.”
READ MORE: Qualicum Beach council rejects appeal on staff’s tree-removal decision
Kevin Monahan is in favour of the bylaw but cited inconsistencies and unfairness. He said there’s room for improvement and needs to be reviewed.
Jay Smith raised the issue of the town exempting itself from the bylaw. He finds it strange because in other jurisdictions, municipalities are covered by the bylaw He also pointed out that if a tree is dead it should be removed as it could be a fire hazard but it should not cost the property owners to replace it.
Council will now wait for a report from staff members to determine whether they will amend certain components of the bylaw.