A motion aimed at regulating tree removal on public lands was generally accepted by the mayor, council, and residents, but extending it to private properties was seen as an ‘overreach.’
As the saying goes, the ideal time to create a tree conservation bylaw was last generation; however, Midland council members recently talked about the next best opportunity for such a measure during their latest meeting.
In February’s committee of the whole session, council reviewed a report presenting four options for a tree conservation bylaw. This came from a request made in 2024 by Coun. Catherine Mac Donald who advocated for improved air quality, beautification, and other forestry-related advantages for Midland.
Mac Donald expressed her astonishment that among the four municipalities with existing bylaws-like Muskoka Lakes, Blue Mountains, and Perth-it was Oakville that piqued her interest.
“First of all, I was surprised with the report that: why would we be comparing it to Oakville?” asked Mac Donald. “But then I started asking some questions on the internet; Chat GPT gave me all the answers.”
“It was so amazing because I asked it to compare Oakville to Penetanguishene, and it actually provided me with a direct comparison of their bylaws. It indicated that Oakville could be a good fit for Midland,” Mac Donald stated. “So I fully support drafting our own bylaw using that as guidance.”
The Oakville option was also recommended by staff in the report and discussed by municipal law enforcement manager Rob Kennedy during the meeting. Two key points focused on what constitutes trees in publicly owned spaces under town arborist authority versus those on private property.
Kennedy also clarified for Coun. Howie Major how dead or damaged trees on private land would be handled, mentioning that homeowners would likely not be subject to municipal regulations when cutting them down.
Mayor Bill Gordon mentioned an informal poll he conducted via his social media account, revealing that most respondents favored implementing tree conservation measures on public lands but felt that regulation over private property would be excessive.
“We already have many bylaws controlling property standards,” said Gordon. “From clean yards to fence height and drainage-there’s endless planning and zoning oversight. We have substantial control over private properties.”
“Those who said: ‘just leave us alone; we don’t need any government control’.. Fact check folks! There’s plenty already affecting your property. You can’t even park a camper in your front yard or back yard,” Gordon added while reiterating his view that tree conservation measures would exceed reasonable limits.
The motion put forth by Mac Donald to create a framework for a tree conservation bylaw wasn’t well received among other council members and was almost unanimously voted down.
A strong argument against developing this framework revolved around large-scale developments and associated clear-cutting boundaries which Coun. Jamie-Lee Ball interpreted as being part of Mac Donald’s concerns.
Balls inquiry regarding town-regulated clear-cutting received feedback from Kennedy who remarked it might duplicate existing Simcoe County bylaws covering properties larger than one hectare (2.47 acres).
“Most development sites will typically exceed 2.47 acres before they’re divided off,” said Kennedy. “For instance, recent developments like the new U-Haul facility going up off Hwy 12 were already addressed under county laws; they’ve secured their own permits.”
The rejected report regarding tree conservation along with various alternatives from other municipalities can be found within the council agenda available on Midland’s official website.
Source link
