Skip to content

Gibsons council adopts tree bylaw

Gibsons council adopted a new tree preservation bylaw at a special meeting Sept. 18 after getting unanimous support for three readings at an earlier meeting, despite some criticism about the complexity of the regulations and the process at a Sept.
Gibsons

Gibsons council adopted a new tree preservation bylaw at a special meeting Sept. 18 after getting unanimous support for three readings at an earlier meeting, despite some criticism about the complexity of the regulations and the process at a Sept. 14 public hearing.

The bylaw went to public hearing even though it didn’t have to.

Mayor Bill Beamish opened the hearing by saying although a public hearing is not required for this type of bylaw, council felt it would be an effective way of getting input.

“Given the limitations on meeting together we felt that the public hearing was the best process to do this,” Beamish said. “We felt that this [hearing] would give people an opportunity to speak to council, to make submissions and to be heard on this matter.”

The 38-page bylaw sets out an extensive list of protected trees such as arbutus, Pacific dogwood, Garry oak, cedars and hemlock and establishes procedures that would minimize tree removal, prevent damage or destruction of trees, and impose mandatory conditions for tree replacement.

In a presentation to explain the bylaw, Town staff said one of the reasons a new bylaw is being proposed is that “clearing larger lots for development in addition to individual tree removals by homeowners has led to an incremental decline in canopy cover that is difficult to offset on a limited amount of public land… Unregulated tree removal on both private and public land can affect trees on adjacent land and the overall ecological function of the urban forest.”

The written submissions were nearly two-to-one in favour of the bylaw, but the speakers who came forward were evenly split.

Those in favour tended to highlight their support for the bylaw’s overall goals; the main objections were that the bylaw is too complex, doesn’t address issues like view protection and imposes penalties that are too harsh.

There were also objections about the process.

Town resident Dennise Dombroski said in a written and oral submission that she objected to council moving forward without input “from a committee of citizens as was originally proposed.”

The owner of a local tree service, Murray Walker, told councillors that while he agreed a new tree bylaw is overdue, the bylaw “puts serious roadblocks and red tape and even financial burdens on homeowners” and “takes away a property owner’s right to maintain their own trees as they see fit and grants that authority to [the Town].”

He also said that even as a professional he found the wording of the bylaw “tough to follow.”

Speakers on both sides of the issue suggested council pull the bylaw back for more public consultation and possibly impose a moratorium on tree cutting until a new bylaw is adopted – something Beamish acknowledged as the hearing was wrapping up and again when the bylaw was forwarded to council for three readings on Sept. 15.

“I do appreciate the approaches that were suggested [at the hearing], “ Beamish said. “But at some point in time, in my view, we have to make a decision to move forward. It’s not going to be perfect; striving for perfection in the first instances should not be our goal. Our goal is tree preservation.”

Beamish said he felt the additional actions included with the bylaw, including that it be reviewed after six months, and that staff report to council in April 2021 on the bylaw implementation and recommendations for amendments or additional community consultation, would address those issues and provide “an ongoing review.”

Council voted unanimously to give the bylaw three readings with the additional resolutions, as well as recommendations that Town staff continue work on an urban forest master plan and establishing a National Healing Forest on Town-owned land.