Rules and by-laws help to make Pointe-Claire a beautiful place to live. Rules and by-laws can also make it a frustrating place to live. Have you ever had a permit refused by the city, or been fined for doing something you didn’t know was wrong? Or maybe you have a damaged tree on your property that the city told you cannot be removed.
That’s exactly what happened to Lakeside Heights resident John Kilpatrick after his tree suffered damage in last April’s ice storm. Mr. Kilpatrick’s concern is that the damaged tree will fall and hurt someone. He paid for a city-recommended arborist who suggested the tree be pruned back 40% and cabled, costing him up to $4000, almost double what it costs to fell the tree. The city by-law says a tree can be felled if it is a danger, and that pruning (20%) and guying (not cabling) would not make it safe. If cabling and 40% pruning is recommended, there seems to be a disconnect between the by-law and the decision the city made regarding Mr. Kilpatrick’s tree.
The city states: “Our aim is to minimize the felling of high-quality trees.” With good reason: trees improve the quality of our air and water, reduce flooding and erosion, provide shade and privacy for us all, plus they beautify our surroundings. However, Pointe-Claire’s tree laws are extreme compared to other cities like Toronto or Ottawa which only start restricting the felling of trees when they are 30 cm in diameter, three times larger than the 10cm restriction in our own by-laws. And did you know you cannot even trim your trees unless it is in accordance with standards laid out by the Bureau de normalisation du Québec?
So, what’s a good citizen to do? We choose to live in this community surrounded by our neighbours, and that requires balancing personal needs with the needs of others. But when do we put our own preferences aside and trust in the expertise of our governing body? And when do city rules become overreach?
At the February 6th City Council meeting, Mr. Kilpatrick again appealed to the mayor for his understanding and a different response to the situation regarding his damaged tree. Mayor Tim Thomas replied: “You already have a decision on this matter. I trust and respect our professional arborists, and that is our decision.”
Fair enough, but trust and respect come with time and experience. The city arborist assessing Mr. Kilpatrick’s tree never even walked to his front door to speak with him to justify that respect or to gain his trust. We should be able to trust the decisions made by our city, but sometimes we feel disrespected by what looks like unfair applications of the tree zoning by-laws.
Another resident's mature tree, damaged in last April’s storm, was cut down in the first week of February. From the stump and limbs it appears to have been a very healthy tree, but there is one big difference: it’s on city property. Haven’t we have all seen trees cut down on lots undergoing demolition and new construction? Yes, the owners replant new trees, but they are only a fraction of the size of those they replace.
If the city wants to preserve mature trees for the benefit of all Pointe-Claire residents, why is it allowing some to be felled, but not others? And why can’t the city offset some of the cost for homeowners who are refused permits to fell and instead must cable their trees?
I asked the city what recourse a resident has in a situation where they feel they have received an unfair ruling. Can they appeal the decision? Could they cut down a tree and risk a fine, the way certain businesses do, to get around government rules that negatively impact them?
Lucie Lamoureux, Director of Communications for Pointe-Claire, was generous with her time in replying to all of my questions. She wrote: "The gateway for requesting a review of a decision rendered depends on the characteristics of the project and the nature of the work to be carried out. A notice of offense would be issued in the case of felling a tree without authorization. Subsequently, the municipality will then take the matter to the appropriate Court of justice."
She also added that “in all cases, Public Works carries out an analysis of the project and formulates recommendations to optimize the canopy and ensure biodiversity, taking into account the characteristics of the project and the lot.”
There appears to be no simple way to appeal Mr. Kilpatrick’s permit refusal. And the responsibility for securing and preserving this tree for the benefit of all of us falls squarely on Mr. Kilpatrick’s shoulders. This creates a conflict between an individual’s rights and the benefits for the community. When viewed through the larger context of power outages and storms we cannot control, rising taxes and a lack of affordable housing, the economic slowdown and inflation, it’s no wonder that some of us are not keen to put the needs of the wider community above our own, occasionally.
When it comes to our private property, we may have vastly different preferences and budgets, and when the city refuses our requests to modify it, it can be very frustrating. It’s easy to wonder “why can that tree be cut down but not mine? Why must I spend thousands on maintaining a tree, but the city can just cut theirs down?” The city aims to protect individual citizens and the community as a whole by maintaining mature trees, so perhaps they could contribute some resources to do that, either with rebates or having Public Works do the cabling.
Running a city means there will always be some folks who are unhappy. Pointe-Claire does a good job of preserving what’s important and beautiful, for a greener and healthier future, for all of us. But these same rules always evolve and change based on the needs of the community. Our hope is that the city continues to listen to its individual residents while planning for the future we all share.