Can development and nature work together ?

It has been proven that trees are the sequestration tool of CO2 and, in return, provide the life-giving necessity of oxygen.

In this time of climate change, what will it take before ‘man’ realizes that trees are this life-giving force and stop their decimation.

Not only are they invaluable to humans but also to those living creatures found within their shelter and, without whom, sustainable life as we know it will cease to exist.

Development will not stop but, surely, there is a way for both development and nature to co-exist in order for the human race and others to continue.

In Bruce County, the Municipality of Kincardine is moving toward a ‘Private Tree Preservation By-law’ as it realizes the many purposes of trees.

“(a) Protecting vegetation for the purpose of wildlife habitat protection, water quality, air quality, ensuring natural form dominates the shoreline, and aesthetics;
(b) Preventing soil erosion and water run-off;
(c) Protecting and conserving vegetation in Environmental Protection Areas;
(d) Retention of tree cover in Scenic Areas and Scenic Corridors;
(e) Minimizing the destruction or injuring of trees;
(f) Regulating and controlling the removal, maintenance, and protection of trees;
(g) Protecting, promoting, and enhancing the aesthetic and economic values of land;
(h) Sustaining a healthy natural environment;
(i) Protecting significant and sensitive natural areas to ensure maximum environmental benefits of trees in both urban and rural settings; and
(j) Contributing to physical and psychological well-being through the maintenance of tree cover.”

Policy C2.3.4 of the Official Plan states that “… development and site alteration shall not be permitted in Significant Woodlands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the Significant Woodlands or their ecological functions as demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study. Policy C2.3.7 defines a Significant Woodland as “All woodlands 4 hectares or greater in area and all woodlands of any size straddling or immediately adjacent to a watercourse.” A re-evaluation of this criteria or identification of “Locally Significant Woodlands” would likely need to be supported with background studies and would require an amendment to the Official Plan.

Treed areas may also be protected through other policies in the Official Plan if, for example, the area forms part of the habitat of an endangered species.

As part of its public consultation process, the Municipality initiated a public survey and the answers were definitely varied.

SURVEY QUESTIONS: Are there any other comments or suggestions regarding the draft Private Tree Preservation by-law that you would like to add?

Below are some of the answers:

• These Bylaws should have come five years ago.
• Global weather change. We are part of the solution or part of the problem. There are too many entitled people who just don’t care.
• Development is slated for Tiverton and i dont want to see more trees cut down in my town.
• Development is heading my way. I dont want inverhuron to look like north kincardine near the hospital. Where do the birds and mamals live now???????
• North Kincardine makes me angry when i see all the dead trees where a healthy forest stood.
• I came back in the spring two years in a row and was deeply saddened to see so much forest cut down in the north end of kincardine where my cottage was cut down. Ive been a seasonal resident for 40 years and i cant believe this could happen.
• Your presentation of the tree bylaws was well done i worry that too many people did this survey before understanding that the bylaws are actually a great thing to have. There are people ive spoken to who believe that we should not have any goverbment control over any thing we do. What i tell them is that with no bylaws there would be no trees left. People need strong leadership.
• After having read the draft bylaw and participated in the 2022-09-13 online public meeting, I have the following suggestions: 1. The bylaw should apply to either all private properties or none. It should not be limited to above an arbitrary property size like 0.5 hectares/1.25 acres as in the current draft (double standard). If it is deemed that the bylaw should not apply to all private properties, then consideration should be given to limiting application to only properties having no existing residential dwellings on it. This would require anyone applying for a building permit to construct a single residential home or to establish a multiple residential subdivision project within a woodland area, to obtain the guidance of an Arborist. This would address the primary cause of unwarranted tree removal within the municipality, and not burden existing residential home owners with unwarranted tree removal permits. 2. The species and number of replacement trees should be entirely at the landscaping discretion of the property owner, and should not be subject to any limitations, such as just native trees.

• No one should be telling anyone what they can or can not remove on their property. If cleared for development than enforcement of the current two trees to replace is a must but private property, a hard NO
• I would like to see more trees planted as a lot of trees have been removed for housing.
• Let’s not make this about rate payers and make the developers not clear cut our wood lots. Put a value to our trees that if you cut one down you have to replace that tree some where else.
• No
• Just another way that the municipality can take our $$
• A new buyer should not be allowed to clear cut the whole yard for a house flip
• I’m hoping all consider climate change as a factor
• Trees are vital to our planets health, however private owners should be allowed to decide if the trees on their property need removing. It is easy to plant numerous small trees and the end result when mature can be interfering with roofs, septic, view etc.
• This applies to lots 0.5 hectares or over, suggest size should be 0.8 hectares or over. Questions 10 and 11, above, state 30 cm, however in DRAFT 3 q and 13.7 a and b state 15 cm – conflict? (agree with 30 cm). Better proofreading required of DRAFT document – page 2 DEVELOPMENT 2nd line, od should be or; 3.2 e and f are duplicates (possibly more, I was not doing proofreading). #13 above, unsure because it could depend on a number of things. #7 above, support if identified changes are incorporated. Although I’ve made comments, I recognize and appreciate the time/effort that has gone into creating this document/by-law. Thank you.
•  What is the problem you are trying to solve ? If it’s clear cutting sub-Division developments then specify that in the development plan. If the town or others want to control other people’s property – than buy the property. People do not want to be told what to do with their property. Also the worst maintained trees in the municipality are on town property – perhaps clean that up, let people decide for themselves.
• To preserve a healthy tree is one thing Forest management is very insightful and if done properly there would never be shortage of forest products but again large lumber companies are cutting faster than the trees grow
• Stop allowing developers to clear cut our forests for houses that none of us can afford!
• Municipality should plant trees or provide onto all street boulevards
• Make the laws stick. Don’t bow down to developers’ pressure
• How does this affect farmland owners and is this the beginning of more to the draft. I’m part of the Penetangore Watershed Group working every year with farmers/landowners planting/managing trees. PWG started with school plants in 2011.
• No. I like the draft by-law.
• My property near Brucedale has had 10 acres of biodiverse forest cut down and that should have been protected.
• No fees or consequences for removing diseased trees or those at risk of falling on home, etc.
• We especially need the laws to stop developers from clear-cutting and also have developers replant what they cut down.
• Don’t restrict residents from what they should be able to do on their own $500,000 +property!!! Get the agricultural community with thousands of acres of cleared land to plant couple trees if your concerned with the canopy.
• This survey is skewed. The main purpose should be to control development and it should be paired with an OPA.
• Kincardine should be increasing the number of trees offered for sale in the spring. Many more people would buy. As well Kincardine is not planting enough new trees.
• I think people have the right to handle the trees on their own property as they see fit, I don’t know why we need to pay for a permit to look after our own trees, or for that matter have someone else dictate what to do with them.
• More info needed
• Move to Toronto if you want to tell people what to do with their land. Small town living is clearly not for you.
• Trees that are a risk or nuisance to a dwelling should be exempt regardless of diameter.
• Who cares if there are trees. Laws will simply mean I will look for work arounds to make it work . Sorry but my concern is maximum profit. I don’t give a crap about what the public thinks of me.
• Phase 2: Tree Preservation by-law Community Feedback – Post Close of Survey Page 7 of 8 N 174 14. Are there any other comments or suggestions regarding the draft Private Tree Preservation by-law that you would like to add? Report Sadly we need bylaws. Doing nothing about the clear cutting will mean total clearcuts. Need bylaws to keep people honest sadly.
• The Municipality should have no rights as to what I do with the trees on my own residential property. I should not require a permit/permission in regards to my trees on my property that I already pay taxes on. I am HIGHLY AGAINST this by-law.
• Far too restrictive and overreaching. The municipality or representative/delegate should have no input status as to what trees on a private residential lot can be removed. The current bylaw is also ridiculously restrictive and poorly written. But I would like to see the draft by-law scrapped.
• Private property is exactly that – Private. When a tree becomes a problem it should be taken care of, whether trimming or taking down. That should be up to the property owner. Some trees are so in the long place, However lots of people plant other trees which are more suitable.
• Farmers should not be allowed to cut down trees. Why are they exempt? Trees are needed even in the rural areas of the municipality.
• I think the biggest threat to the size of tree canopy is Emerald Ash Borer and Climate change. Cutting trees unreasonably is too small a nail to hit with this hammer. Planting as many trees as possible is what should take all available resources
• For small lot owners, other communities require a letter of permission from neighbouring yards that are affected by the tree canopy.
• if a limit on tree removals is applied there should be some flexibility. Example: installing a pool may require 8 trees to be removed. In that instance the removals should be permitted
• regulating private trees should not the municipality’s interest. opening the town to be sued for damages if large trees are not approved to be removed on private property and they fall and cause property damage.
• I think we could be replanting better avoid clear cutting that may cause erosion problems and plan for conservation of green space which makes quality of life great in Kincardine
• I feel like this bylaw is an overstepping of boundaries. I don’t always agree with what my neighbours do but I accept that there are certain rights that should come with land ownership. The main concern seems to be with how developers handle tree retention. New development applications should be met with tree retention plans and restrictions on title to manage this. There is no need to impose a burdensome bylaw on existing homeowners.
• A ‘nuisance’ or ‘scrub’ tree is not defined in the draft. There needs to be latitude for a home owner to remove a healthy tree that is improperly located (a two or three for one planting?)

It is obvious from the survey, that there are a number of issues – from stopping developers from clearcutting to replanting for every tree removed to ‘not on my private property’ to the ultimate, “I don’t give a crap what people think of me.”

It is evident that the issue of trees, clearcutting by developers, head-in-the-sand attitudes toward climate change will not be overcome any time soon.  Hopefully, the world will survive and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will make the needed change … if we’re still here.