West Â鶹´«Ă˝Ół»council is considering mandatory minimum amounts of trees that must be present on single-family lots.
That’s one of the key recommendations from the district’s Interim Tree Bylaw Working Group, who presented their final report to council Monday night, including 20 policy recommendations.
Facing outcry in the community about the loss of trees in single-family neighbourhoods as lots were clear cut and redeveloped with much larger homes, council passed an interim tree bylaw in April 2016, with trunks more than 75 centimetres or more in diameter.
Council struck the working group after that policy proved deeply divisive, particularly from those who saw it as government overreach that would prevent them from opening up views, letting light onto their gardens and putting their homes at risk from blow-down.
Under the proposed formula, one tree would be required for every 150 square metres of property, roughly, which adds up to about five or six trees for the typical single-family lot. But the rule would only apply to properties that are undergoing redevelopment.
“In a nutshell what we concluded was that the problem, first and foremost, resides with new development and new houses being built and associated clear cutting. That was something we knew we had to find a solution to,” said Nic Tsangarakis, one of the working group members who presented to council.
Property owners who have met the mandatory minimum requirement of trees won’t require a permit to remove trees from their lot and will have the option to remove one tree every three years if they fall below the minimum. That means that homeowners could eventually reduce the number of trees on their property to zero – a point of contention among some on council and in the community. One council watcher stormed out of West Vancouver’s chambers Monday evening and uttered “this is ridiculous.”
Some species of tree –including arbutus, yellow cedar and Pacific dogwood –would have an additional layer of protection, as would trees on steep slopes or those likely to be more than 120 years old.
The district will also have the option for taking cash in lieu of preservation or replanting if the property cannot accommodate the minimum number, under the proposed policy.
Council should also protect trees with root systems that cross property lines and into the path of a redevelopment project, the working group is suggesting.
The group is also recommending a height limit of three metres for hedges. Existing hedges would not be grandfathered in.
Also on the list is a survey of the existing canopy, which survey respondents found to be “about right” to establish a baseline and period reviews of the bylaw to make sure it is having its intended effect.
Along with the regulations, there would be an equal emphasis on public education, Tsangarakis said.
Members of council offered their thanks to the working group, which had been meeting once every two weeks for the last year. Coun. Bill Soprovich praised the group for coming to a consensus without using a “sledgehammer approach.” But he also questioned why the group wasn’t recommending mandatory planting of trees on lots that had already been cleared.
“Not taking away from the work that you did, but have you been tough enough?” he asked.
The question, Tsangarakis said, typifies why West Â鶹´«Ă˝Ół»council needed the working group in the first place.
“I think that if you had to ask some of us on the working group, the answer to that is no. And if you were to ask others in the working group, the answer is we’ve been too tough. The point is that the working group has been selected to represent our residents. We know that there are many differences of opinion. … Our recommendations are a function, in many ways, of reaching consensus, hard-fought negotiation and compromises. They aren’t perfect. It’s the best product we’ve arrived at.”
What Tsangarakis could say for sure was West Vancouverites were ready to see some change in the rules to protect trees.
“We emphatically know from our various data points and inputs that there is broad-based support amongst our residents for some form of regulation,” he said.
The final report and proposed bylaw changes have been posted to the district’s website and will be open to public comment for six weeks.
Council is expected to vote on some version of a new bylaw in May.
