Surrey council's move to amend the city's Tree Protection Bylaw to "improve clarity" has raised questions for Deb Jack, president of Surrey Environmental Partners.
Council on Oct. 21 without debate approved a corporate report and passed third reading on a related bylaw. The report from Ron Gill, Surrey's acting general manager of planning and development, and Philip Huynh, city solicitor, states the changes "are intended to improve administration, clarity and remove barriers to access" concerning the bylaw, which "regulates the preservation and maintenance of trees within the City."
Included in the amendments are increasing tree cutting permit fees to replace administrative penalty fees and enhancing city staff discretion "to require additional and upsized replacement trees where trees have been cut without a permit.
"This amendment is intended to simplify the recovery of increased administrative costs borne by the City and provide
an additional tool to staff to assist in replacing the City’s tree canopy when protected trees are cut
without a permit contrary to the Tree Protection Bylaw," the report reads. "Enforcement of unpermitted tree cutting
will continue through traditional means of enforcement, such as ticketing or long form prosecutions."
According to the report, the amendments also feature "clearer language, including amendments to operative defined
terms such as 'damage', and the inclusion of new defined terms such as 'crown' and 'topping', changes designed to provide staff and residents with "a more precise understanding of compliance expectations.
"By enhancing clarity, the City aims to minimize misunderstandings and improve enforceability and overall compliance with the bylaw," it reads. Moreover, the amendments are designed to remove for the public potential barriers to access "with the intent of fostering a better understanding" of the bylaw and "make it easier for residents to understand the standards and requirements that
apply to tree maintenance and protection within the City, and promote better compliance."
Jack, however, questions the "erasure of tree specialists/arborists" and wonders if developers will seek under the amendments to reduce the number of trees they're required to replace their "tree kill."
Surrey Environmental Partners, she said, has long opposed maximums being set "for compensation of tree-kill either as two for one in trees or financial for purchase of trees in rest of community or combination. A tree is a tree, replaceable only by a tree. After all, the conifers are sold for lumber with profit to the tree-killer."
One "problem" she charged is that the City of Surrey provides no incentives for land owners to grow, keep and care for trees.
"Some sort of tax relief has been suggested. And instead of threats of penalties, positives. I read of a jurisdiction where, when a tree was protected from destruction it was considered to have been so in perpetuity. So, all of them were visited annually to ensure health and catch problems before serious consequences."
Jack noted trees are "essential community assets" that promote the health and well-being of residents and visitors alike.
She recalled passing by a home "some years" ago and discovered a tree she had long admired had been cut down.
"Horrified, I asked why."
Jack said she was told the tree was destroyed "because of all the Fall leaves," and that the residents were no longer fit enough to rake them up "and could not afford to have it done."
Jack maintains the City should help seniors who own land to keep their trees.
"They are caregivers of some of the City's greatest service providers, their trees."
