HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-01 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the May 25, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting and the May 26, 2015
Special Council Workshop Meeting
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
•Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee On The Accessibility
Issues – April 16, 2015
3.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
4.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 1, 2015
9:00 a.m.
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN TIME
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
June 1, 2015
Audit & Finance Committee Meeting 7:30 a.m.
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
June 9, 2015
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
June 1, 2015
Page 2 of 4
5.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Information on Solid Waste Collection 9:15-10:00 a.m.
- Additional Information for Review
Staff report dated June 1, 2015 providing information with facts to guide
deliberations around solid waste collection.
5.2 Remedial Action Order – 22333 122 Avenue 10:00-10:30 a.m.
–Request for Reconsideration - Shafique Rashid
5.3 Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Update 10:30-11:15 a.m.
Staff report dated June 1, 2015 presenting outcomes of a consultation process
for the proposed tree management bylaw.
6.CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a)Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b)Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c)Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d)Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
6.1 Province of British Columbia – Office of the Premier 11:15-11:30 a.m.
Letter dated May 27, 2015 from Christy Clark, Premier, Province of British
Columbia providing information on the requests for meetings with herself or a
Cabinet Minister at the UBCM Convention.
Council Workshop
June 1, 2015
Page 3 of 4
6.2 Upcoming Events
Friday, June 5
10:00 a.m.
Sacred Space Grand Opening – Ridge Meadows Hospital
Organizer: Fraser Health
Saturday, June 6
11:00 a.m.
Pitt Meadows Day Parade – Pitt Meadows
Organizer: City of Pitt Meadows
Monday, June 8
6:30 p.m.
Girl Guides Awards Ceremony – Inlet Theatre, Port Moody
Organizer: Girl Guides of Canada
Tuesday, June 9
12:30 p.m.
Annual Community Network Committee Presentations – Maple
Ridge Library
Organizer: Community Network
Wednesday, June 10
9:30 a.m.
Conversation on Age-Friendly Communities – Ridge Meadows
Seniors Centre
Organizer: Senior’s Network
Saturday, June 20
8:30 p.m.
Ride2Survive – Planet Ice
Organizer: Ride2Survive
Sunday, June 21
7:00 p.m.
Ride Don’t Hide – Planet Ice
Organizer: Canadian Mental Health Association
Saturday, June 25
11:00 a.m.
Eid Celebration – Maple Ridge Library
Organizer: Fraser Valley Regional Library
Tuesday, August 25
11:00 a.m.
Summer Reading Club Finale – Maple Ridge Library
Organizer: Fraser Valley Regional Library
Monday, September 21
12:00 p.m.
Maple Ridge Firefighters Fire Ground Orientation – Vancouver
Fire & Rescue Training Centre
Organizer: BC Firefighters
Wednesday, October 21
11:30 p.m.
Community Living BBQ – Greg Moore Youth Centre
Organizer: Community Living BC
7.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9.ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
June 1, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
May 25, 2015
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on May 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in the
Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the
purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor K. Duncan Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor G Robson Services
Councillor T. Shymkiw D. Spence, Acting General Manager of Corporate and
Councillor C. Speirs Financial Services
C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
Other Staff as Required
L. Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate
Planning
R. MacNair, Manager of Bylaws and Licences
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following items:
4.5 Discussion of Mayor and Council Reports
4.6 Provincial Response to 2014 UBCM Resolutions
4.7 Meeting with Minister of Advanced Education
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
May 25, 2015
Page 2 of 5
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of May 4, 2015
R/2015-215
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of May 4, 2015 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
• Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel – March 10, 2015
• Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Commission – April 1, 2015
• Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission – April 7, 2015
• Maple Ridge And Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission
Regular Meeting – April 9, 2015
R/2015-216
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel dated March 10,
2015, the Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Commission dated April 1,
2015, the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission dated April 7, 2015
and the Maple Ridge And Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission
Regular Meeting dated April 9, 2015 be received.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Council Workplan 2015
Staff report dated May 25, 2015 providing a calendar of Council Workplan
items for 2015.
The Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning reviewed the report.
4.1.1
R/2015-217
It was moved and seconded
That the appendices titled “Council Workplan-Scheduled Items” and “Council
Workplan-Unscheduled Items” as attached to the May 25, 2015 report
entitled “Council Workplan 2015-2018” be endorsed.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 25, 2015
Page 3 of 5
4.1.1
R/2015-218
It was moved and seconded
That the resolution to endorse the Council Workplan be deferred to the June
15, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting.
CARRIED
4.1.2
R/2015-219
It was moved and seconded
That Mayor Read, Councillor Bell and Councillor Speirs meet with the Manager
of Sustainability & Corporate Planning to review the appendices of the Council
Workplan report in order to prioritize and set timing on items.
CARRIED
Note: Item 4.2 was deferred from the April 28, 2015 Council Meeting
4.2 Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw
Staff report dated April 20, 2015 recommending that Maple Ridge Ticket
Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7061-2014 to update the parent
Ticketing Bylaw with recently amended offences in various bylaws be given
first, second and third readings.
The General Manager Public Works and Development Services clarified the
intent of the proposed amendments to the bylaw.
The Acting General Manager Corporate and Financial Services and the
Director of Parks and Facilities provided clarification of the fine amounts.
R/2015-220
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7061-2014 be given first, second and third readings.
CARRIED
Councillor Robson – OPPOSED
Note: The meeting recessed at 11:32 p.m. and reconvened at 3:51 p.m.
Note: Items 4.3 to 5.2 were deferred to a Special Council Workshop Meeting
Scheduled for May 26, 2015 at 5:30 p.m.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 25, 2015
Page 4 of 5
4.3 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative
– UBCM Grant Funding Opportunity
Staff report dated May 25, 2015 recommending that the City make an
application to the Provincial Government for funding for both a Fuel
Management Prescription.
4.4 2015 Residential Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated May 25, 2015 providing information on municipal property
taxes assessed to the Class 1 – Residential Property Class.
For information only
No motion required
4.5 Discussion of Mayor and Council Reports
4.6 Provincial Response to 2014 UBCM Resolutions
4.7 Meeting with Ministry of Advanced Education
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 City of Burnaby – Kinder Morgan Proposed Burnaby Tank Farm Expansion
News Release dated May 13, 2015 from the Officer of the Mayor, City of
Burnaby, providing information on a Burnaby Fire Department comprehensive
risk assessment which analyses the fire and safety risks, hazard events and
consequences associated with the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan
Burnaby Tank Farm.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 25, 2015
Page 5 of 5
5.2 Upcoming Events
Saturday, June 6
9:00 a.m.
Maple Ridge Secondary School Graduation – Maple Ridge
Secondary School
Organizer: School District No. 42
Sunday, June 7
11:00 a.m.
Tri Cities Ridge Meadows Walk for ALS – Riverside Secondary
School (Coquitlam)
Organizer: ALS Society of BC
Monday, June 8
6:00 p.m.
Facilities & Learning Open House – Pitt Meadows Secondary
School
Organizer: School District No. 42
Wednesday, June 10
7:00 p.m.
Facilities & Learning Open House – Thomas Haney Secondary
School
Organizer: School District No. 42
Thursday, June 11
7:00 p.m.
Continuing Education Adult Recognition Ceremony & Celebration
– Riverside Centre
Organizer: Continuing Education Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. ADJOURNMENT – 3:55 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
City of Maple Ridge
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
May 26, 2015
The Minutes of the City Council Special Workshop held on May 26, 2015 at 5:30 p.m.
in the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia
for the purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor K. Duncan Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor B. Masse D. Spence, Acting General Manager Corporate and
Councillor G Robson Financial Services
Councillor T. Shymkiw F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor C. Speirs Services
C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
L. Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate
Planning
M. Van Dop, Assistant Fire Chief
J. Bergmann, Research Technician
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following item:
2.6 Council Workshop Meeting Times
2.0 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
2.1 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative
–UBCM Grant Funding Opportunity
Staff report dated May 25, 2015 recommending that the City make an
application to the Provincial Government for funding for both a Fuel
Management Prescription.
2.1
Special Council Workshop Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2015
Page 2 of 4
The Assistant Fire Chief reviewed the report.
R/2015-221
It was moved and seconded
1. That City staff make application for grant funding to the Union of British
Columbia Municipalities Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative for a Fuel
Management Prescription based on priorities identified in the
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2007); and further,
2. That the City will provide overall grant management for that Fuel
Management Prescription.
CARRIED
2.2 2015 Residential Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated May 25, 2015 providing information on municipal property
taxes assessed to the Class 1 – Residential Property Class.
The Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning reviewed the report.
2.3 Discussion of Mayor and Council Reports
R/2015-222
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to add Mayor and Councillor Reports to the beginning
of the Council Workshop Meeting agenda and that Mayor and Councillors
report out as they deem suitable; and further
That links to minutes of Metro Vancouver meetings attended by Council
representatives be included in the Council Workshop meeting agenda as
required.
CARRIED
2.4 Provincial Response to 2014 Union of British Columbia Municipalities
(“UBCM”) Resolutions
Letter dated May 11, 2015 from Councillor Sav Dhaliwal, President, UBCM,
providing information on the provincial response to the 2014 resolutions put
forward by the City of Maple Ridge Council and endorsed by UBCM.
Special Council Workshop Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2015
Page 3 of 4
R/2015-223
It was moved and seconded
That the letter dated May 11, 2015 from Councillor Sav Dhaliwal,
President, UBCM be received for information.
CARRIED
2.5 Meeting with Ministry of Advanced Education
Councillor Masse updated Council on a meeting of the Post-Secondary Task
Force with the Minister of Advanced Education. No plans to build a facility.
Suggestion to host a cohort program. Survey Grade 12 students to determine
what they would like to take. Agreed to have Ministry staff work with our staff
to advance opportunities for post-secondary in Maple Ridge. Partner with UFV
and Douglas to accomplish. Next step is to build the survey. Staff working on
that now.
Note: Item 2.6 was dealt with following Item 2.3
2.6 Council Workshop Meeting Time
R/2015-224
It was moved and seconded
That the start time of the Council Workshop Meeting be changed from 10:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
CARRIED
Councillor Robson, Councillor Shymkiw - OPPOSED
3. CORRESPONDENCE
3.1 City of Burnaby – Kinder Morgan Proposed Burnaby Tank Farm Expansion
News Release dated May 13, 2015 from the Officer of the Mayor, City of
Burnaby, providing information on a Burnaby Fire Department comprehensive
risk assessment which analyses the fire and safety risks, hazard events and
consequences associated with the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan
Burnaby Tank Farm.
Special Council Workshop Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2015
Page 4 of 4
R/2015-225
It was moved and seconded
That receipt of the news release dated May 13, 2015 from the City of
Burnaby be acknowledged and that the City of Burnaby be requested to
keep the City of Maple Ridge informed.
CARRIED
3.2 Upcoming Events
Saturday, June 6
9:00 a.m.
Maple Ridge Secondary School Graduation – Maple Ridge
Secondary School
Organizer: School District No. 42
Sunday, June 7
11:00 a.m.
Tri Cities Ridge Meadows Walk for ALS – Riverside Secondary
School (Coquitlam)
Organizer: ALS Society of BC
Monday, June 8
6:00 p.m.
Facilities & Learning Open House – Pitt Meadows Secondary
School
Organizer: School District No. 42
Wednesday, June 10
7:00 p.m.
Facilities & Learning Open House – Thomas Haney Secondary
School
Organizer: School District No. 42
Thursday, June 11
7:00 p.m.
Continuing Education Adult Recognition Ceremony & Celebration
– Riverside Centre
Organizer: Continuing Education Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows
8. ADJOURNMENT – 6:32 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 1111 of of of of 4444
MAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWSMAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWSMAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWSMAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWS
MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUESMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUESMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUESMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory
Committee on Accessibility Issues, held in the Blaney Room at the Maple Ridge Municipal
Hall on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Turnbull Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Andrew Pozsar, Vice-Chair Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Councillor Bruce Bell Council Liaison, City of Pitt Meadows
Maria Kovacs Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Councillor Duncan Council Liaison (alternate), City of Maple Ridge
Kevin Priebe, Chair Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Cydney Peacock Community at Large, Maple Ridge
Bernice Rolls Community at Large, Maple Ridge
STAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Petra Frederick Recreation Coordinator
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
Wendy McCormick Director of Recreation
REGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENT
Julie Lewis Fraser Health Authority
Gillian Small Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living
Mike Murray School District #42 Trustee
Councillor Craig Speirs Council Liaison, City of Maple Ridge
1.1.1.1. CALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 5:09 pm.
2.2.2.2. AGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTION
R15-012 It was moved and seconded
That the That the That the That the aaaagenda dated genda dated genda dated genda dated April April April April 16161616, , , , 2012012012015555 be adoptedbe adoptedbe adoptedbe adopted with the following additionwith the following additionwith the following additionwith the following additionssss::::
Item 5.Item 5.Item 5.Item 5.5555 –––– Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel –––– Greg TurnbullGreg TurnbullGreg TurnbullGreg Turnbull andandandand Item 5.6Item 5.6Item 5.6Item 5.6
Community ForumCommunity ForumCommunity ForumCommunity Forum
CARRIED
2.2
Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes ---- Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, April April April April 16161616, 201, 201, 201, 2015555
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesAccessibility IssuesAccessibility IssuesAccessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 2222 of of of of 4444
3.3.3.3. MMMMINUTES AINUTES AINUTES AINUTES ADOPTIONDOPTIONDOPTIONDOPTION
R15-013 It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes That the Minutes That the Minutes That the Minutes of the of the of the of the March 19March 19March 19March 19, 2015 , 2015 , 2015 , 2015 meeting be adoptedmeeting be adoptedmeeting be adoptedmeeting be adopted....
CARRIED
4. 4. 4. 4. DDDDELEGATIONS & ELEGATIONS & ELEGATIONS & ELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONS ---- NilNilNilNil
5.5.5.5. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.15.15.15.1 Accessible Transit Stop UpdateAccessible Transit Stop UpdateAccessible Transit Stop UpdateAccessible Transit Stop Update
The Chair reported that there is approximately 20 hours of work remaining on
the accessible transit stop mapping project. The Chair and Vice-Chair are
currently compiling the data gathered. The Staff Liaison provided an overview of
the work done to date. The next step is to provide a list of transit stop priorities
to Engineering for their feedback. Locations for curb cuts can also be
recommended.
Bernice Rolls and Cydney Peacock entered the meeting at 5:14 pm.
Wendy McCormick entered the meeting at 5:25 pm.
5.25.25.25.2 MACAI Awards UpdateMACAI Awards UpdateMACAI Awards UpdateMACAI Awards Update
2015 is the twelfth year of the Accessibility Awards, which recognize champions
in the community. A Citizen Champion category has been added this year for a
citizen who goes out of their way to assist people with disabilities. The Staff
Liaison recommended May 20th as a deadline for nominations which would
allow nominations to be reviewed at the next MACAI meeting. The Awards
ceremony is being planned for June 18th at Pitt Meadows Municipal Hall. The
Staff Liaison will finalize preparations and distribute paper and electronic
nomination forms. Suggestions were made on ways to advertise the awards.
5.35.35.35.3 Citizen Survey UpdateCitizen Survey UpdateCitizen Survey UpdateCitizen Survey Update
The Staff Liaison shared the draft Citizen Survey for Committee review. The
purpose of the survey is to seek feedback from Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge
citizens on community accessibility. Ideas for advertising the survey were
discussed. June 1st was suggested as a deadline for responses. Committee
members have until Friday, April 24th to provide feedback on the language used
on the form.
R15-014 It was moved and seconded
That That That That the Staff Liaison incorporate any Committee feedback and proceed with the survey.the Staff Liaison incorporate any Committee feedback and proceed with the survey.the Staff Liaison incorporate any Committee feedback and proceed with the survey.the Staff Liaison incorporate any Committee feedback and proceed with the survey.
CARRIED
5.45.45.45.4 Committee Website UpdateCommittee Website UpdateCommittee Website UpdateCommittee Website Update
The Committee Clerk reviewed the recent updates to the Committee website
and encouraged feedback and suggestions from Committee members.
Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes ---- Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, April April April April 16161616, 201, 201, 201, 2015555
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesAccessibility IssuesAccessibility IssuesAccessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 3333 of of of of 4444
5.55.55.55.5 Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel Pitt Meadows Advisory Design Panel
Greg Turnbull let Committee members know that the Pitt Meadows Advisory
Design Panel is seeking a member to represent people with accessibility issues.
Historically the Panel meets quarterly. Interested persons should let Mr.
Turnbull know.
5.5.5.5.6666 CommuniCommuniCommuniCommunity Forumty Forumty Forumty Forum
The Chair and the Staff Liaison provided an explanation of the addition of the
Community Forum item to the agenda. After discussion
R15-015 It was moved and seconded
ThatThatThatThat Community Forum be added as Item 5 to MACAI agendas going forward.Community Forum be added as Item 5 to MACAI agendas going forward.Community Forum be added as Item 5 to MACAI agendas going forward.Community Forum be added as Item 5 to MACAI agendas going forward.
CARRIED
6.6.6.6. ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE
Andrew Pozsar raised the issue of completing the bus stop project. The Staff Liaison will
work on summarizing and finalizing the data once it is received.
Bernice Rolls recently attended a Transition Fair with the Staff Liaison and entertained
questions and comments from the public. Having gathered feedback of citizen’s
concerns Ms. Rolls suggested that a list be created and shared to advertise accessible
businesses. Ms. Rolls and Councillor Bell discussed the process for bringing issues to
the attention of city councils. Ms. Rolls raised the issue of a Maple Ridge resident with
mobility issues that is experiencing a road safety issue at his residence. Ms. Rolls will
forward the contact information on to the Staff Liaison for follow up. The Staff Liaison
will bring the issue back to the committee if appropriate.
The Staff Liaison thanked Bernice Rolls and Cydney Peacock for attending two
community events in the past month.
Councillor Duncan welcomed feedback and communication from committee members.
The Director of Recreation shared the website planat.com (provided through the Rick
Hansen Foundation) that allows users to share and search accessibility ratings for
businesses. Ms. McCormick thanked Kevin Priebe for attending a recent focus group
meeting regarding the Maple Ridge swimming pool renovation. Ms. McCormick provided
an overview of the changes that are being considered to the pool and these were
discussed by the Committee. A request has been made to have draft plans brought to
the committee for review when they are available.
The Staff Liaison let the committee know that the Age Friendly project is moving
forward. A working group has been established.
7.7.7.7. CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE –––– Nil
Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes ---- Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, April April April April 16161616, 201, 201, 201, 2015555
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesAccessibility IssuesAccessibility IssuesAccessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 4444 of of of of 4444
8.8.8.8. NEXT MEETING NEXT MEETING NEXT MEETING NEXT MEETING ---- Thursday, May 21, 2015
AGENDAAGENDAAGENDAAGENDA DEADLINE DEADLINE DEADLINE DEADLINE ---- Monday, May 4, 2015
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION ---- Blaney Room, Maple Ridge City Hall
9.9.9.9. AJOURNMENTAJOURNMENTAJOURNMENTAJOURNMENT 7:7:7:7:11110000 pmpmpmpm
/ss
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 1, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5380-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Information on Solid Waste Collection – Additional Information for Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In response to Council’s requests, staff drafted a report to Workshop on March 30, 2015 titled “Solid
Waste Collection Options” to provide information on various delivery model options for solid waste
collection ranging from maintaining the existing user-choice subscription model to implementation of
a municipally administered collection system that could be contracted out or provided through in-
house collection. As discussion progressed there were areas around which Council requested
additional information. These issues were further affirmed in a follow-up report to Workshop on April
20, 2015 titled “Solid Waste Collection – Issues for Consideration”. The purpose of this report is to
provide Council with appropriate facts to guide the deliberations around solid waste collection.
Solid Waste and recycling efforts in Metro Vancouver are governed by the regional Integrated Solid
Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) that identifies a number of goals, strategies,
actions and measures under the overriding principle to reduce the volume of waste generated
through a waste reduction campaign, recovery of materials for recycling and energy from the waste
that remains. Although the ISWRMP sets targets, it is the requirement of each municipality how best
to meet the stated targets as the solid waste and recycling philosophies vary across the Region.
There have been a number of significant initiatives instigated in pursuit of the stated ISWRMP goals
including the implementation of a Multi-Material BC (MMBC) Stewardship Plan for Packaging and
Printed Paper (PPP) as well as bans for organics and clean wood.
This report provides information in three general areas: information on various elements of solid
collection and disposal; explanation of Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (RMRS) functions, as well
as discussion pertaining to public process. The March 30, 2015 “Solid Waste Collection Options”
report and the April 20, 2015 “Solid Waste Collection – Issues for Consideration” report are attached
for Council’s perusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is for information. No motion required.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The March 30, 2015 “Solid Waste Collection Options” report provided information on various
solid waste collection models for Council’s consideration. As part of that discussion there were
additional issues identified by Council that were subsequently brought forward in the April 20,
2015 “Solid Waste Collection – Issues for Consideration” report.
5.1
The intent of this report is to provide that information, categorized in three topic areas:
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
Public Process to Determine the Level of Support for municipally administered garbage
and organics curbside collection.
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection
Metro Vancouver operates the Albion Transfer Station that accepts residential garbage and
green waste. Metro staff have stated that there were a total of 142,080 customers in 2014 but
they do not track the types of users - small commercial haulers, those residents bringing in large
items as opposed to residential garbage nor do they track if the customers are residents of
Maple Ridge.
Based upon a recent survey by RMRS, approximately 60% of the 25,000 total households in
Maple Ridge participate in the current subscription garbage collection system, which equates to
some 15,000 homes. The market share for each contractor is not well defined as not all
companies were willing to disclose their customer base but of the four main contractors, AJM
stated they had in excess of 3,000 customers and Waste Management, 4,000 customers.
The private haulers have all indicated that they currently provide service to all households in
Maple Ridge, regardless of whether the property is urban or rural. They have also indicated that
should the City move to a municipally administered garbage collection system for largely urban
areas only, they would most likely not continue to service the rural properties given that the low
number of potential customers and associated higher costs.
RMRS provide curbside collection service to 23,151 households (2015) throughout the City,
largely within the urban containment boundary but the overall collection area extends into a
number of semi-rural or rural areas. RMRS has indicated that outside of the defined urban areas
they work with City staff to determine future population densities and will expand their collection
area when they ascertain that there are 3,000 households in place, which corresponds to the
trigger point where an additional recycling collection truck is deemed viable. As such, RMRS
undertake curbside collection in areas as far east as 272 Street, north of Dewdney Trunk Road,
which includes Whispering Falls and Rothsay/Garibaldi areas. Recycling and garbage collection
coverage often align especially where the majority of a municipality is considered urban.
However, the Township of Langley which is similar in composition to Maple Ridge with defined
urban areas as well as large rural areas provides curbside recycling to all of the municipality but
only provides garbage collection in the denser urban areas. A map of the areas currently
serviced by RMRS curbside collection is attached.
The Local Government Act enables municipalities to establish a solid waste utility, which is
similar in nature to water and sewer utilities in that the charges are separate from general
taxation, either wholly or in part. Through discussions with other municipalities it has been
ascertained that the annual solid waste charges do not always cover all costs attributed to solid
waste collection and disposal – some jurisdictions take a blended approach where a portion of
the costs come from a utility, the remainder from general taxation or utility reserves.
Based upon recent publicly tendered and awarded contracts in Metro Vancouver, the projected
cost to provide curbside garbage and organic collection in the City is in the range of $275 to
$300 (based on collection in the largely urban areas). In the May 25, 2015 “2015 Residential
Class Property Taxation” report presented to Council Workshop, the cost of Municipal Taxes &
Utilities is $3,055 for the stated “2015 Average Single Family Dwelling”. Using the projected
range of costs for curbside garbage and organics collection, the additional costs would represent
an annual increase in taxes and utilities of 9-10% unless there were offsetting savings identified
elsewhere in the Financial Plan.
Using a household count of 23,000 (those currently serviced by RMRS) the projected overall
annual cost of a curbside garbage and organics program (collection and disposal) would equate
to between $6.3M and $6.9M. For illustrative purposes, if $275 is assumed to be the actual
annual cost per household for collection and disposal, but there was a desire to charge a lower
rate then the following table represents the magnitude of funds that would be required from
other revenue sources:
$275 $0
$250 $0.55 Million
$225 $1.10 Million
$200 $1.70 Million
$175 $2.30 Million
The question of whether or not a municipally administered garbage and organics program would,
or could, include multi-family developments – townhouses and apartments - has been raised. It
is reasonable to assume that townhouses could be included if they already have recycling
curbside collection – RMRS currently collects recycling at townhouse complexes where the
material is set out at curbside for each household. If the collection is centralized then
specialized trucks are often required as the garbage is generally dumped in large metal
containers; this is practical typically in a municipality where there are large numbers of
apartments but even so, some are moving away from the apartment collection.
If an apartment complex does use totes, some municipalities – Burnaby, for example – will
collect garbage, organic and recycling but the totes have to be able to be emptied using the
regular garbage trucks. Rental apartments are typically considered to be part of the Industrial,
Commercial & Institutional (ICI) sector so they generally use private contractors to remove their
garbage.
In a municipally administered solid waste collection program the municipality would, through the
proposal/tender process be able to regulate the terms for a contractor – standards for vehicles,
routing, frequency, disposal. For the subscription model, the City could, through amendments to
the Solid Waste Bylaw regulate the route schedules for the multiple contractors – for example
Council may determine that the private haulers must coincide with the RMRS collection schedule
to cut down on neighbourhoods having garbage collection on multiple days. Regulating where
the collected material should be disposed of under the current subscription model is not seen as
a viable option.
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
RMRS is a community-based, non-profit organization with charitable status that has a renewable
five year Fee-for-Service Partnership agreement with the City, the current agreement ending in
February 2018. RMRS currently provides curbside recycling collection to approximately 23,000
single family households and 5,580 apartment units in the City as well as operating a Depot in
Albion that is a considered a leader in the Metro Vancouver Region. Council received a
presentation from RMRS at the May 04, 2015 Committee of the Whole therefore the focus of
this report will not be on the day-to-day functional details of the recycling operations but rather
the questions raised by Council at the March 30, 2015 and April 20, 2015 Council Workshops.
For 2015, the Financial Plan funds the RMRS operations as follows:
City Recycling Levy (Curbside & Depot) $1,882,481.39 (59% of total)
MMBC (Curbside & Depot) $1,220,202.75
Metro Vancouver (Tipping Fees) $ 100,000.00
Total $3,202,684.14
The RMRS 2015 budget is $3,439,807.50, in part because they receive additional grants from
the Province for the supported work staff. A copy of the budget as presented by RMRS at
Committee of the Whole in May 2015 is attached.
The Agreement between the City and RMRS states that any annual profit or loss is shared – 80%
to the City, 20% to RMRS. Since 1994 there has been a profit in fourteen of the twenty year
period and there is a net revenue to the City of over $112,000. The implementation of MMBC
with associated funding may well have an impact upon the value of the annual profit/loss, but as
MMBC commenced partway though 2014, there is limited data to compare at this stage.
RMRS staff state that the 2015 cost to provide curbside (source-separated) recycling collection
is estimated at $2,100,000, while the cost to operate the Depot is estimated at $1,344,000.
In considering potential opportunities for RMRS such as having them collect organic waste at
curbside, it is noted that the current trucks are configured to maximize the collection of source-
separated recyclable materials so should the collection of organic waste be considered it would
require the purchase of additional vehicles. Coupled with a move to a municipally-administered
garbage collection system – excluding organics – would likely result in less favourable per
household rates than having a unified garbage and organics program as the year-to-year volume
of garbage is declining through all the various diversion initiatives.
Should the scope of RMRS operations be reduced in some way – for example, by eliminating the
curbside collection - it is thought that the Depot could continue to function as it currently is,
assuming that the volume of materials currently collected at curbside would be delivered to the
Depot for sorting and baling. There would be a reduction in the staffing, specifically those
related to the curbside collection operation but accordingly there would be a related decrease in
costs as there would be no need for the truck fleet or staff.
If the curbside recycling stock were not to be delivered to the Depot then there would most likely
be further impacts on staffing, including the supported workforce funded by the Province. The
Depot could possibly continue to function as a drop-off facility for residents but this would
require further evaluation of the possible costs and revenue depending upon the scope of
services to be provided.
Under the MMBC program, the City does have the option of opting out of the curbside recycling
collection altogether as some other municipalities chose to, although the only Metro Vancouver
city to do so was Coquitlam. Where a municipality has chosen not to participate, MMBC have
contracted the service out to a contractor. Alternatively, should the City wish to initiate a
municipally administered garbage, organics and recycling collection contract, the City could
revise the partnership with RMRS to sever the curbside recycling collection, with the option to
maintain the Depot although this would require confirmation on the potential legal ramifications.
As an aside there are some issues around the MMBC program that are yet to be resolved – not
all Packing and Printed Paper (PPP) industries have signed up for the program which impacts
funding, and there is another group stating that they will be seeking to offer an alternate to
MMBC, subject to Provincial approval. Also, it is staff’s understanding that there are certain
municipalities that have indicated their desire to be included in the MMBC program and receive
funding for PPP curbside collection, having initially elected not to participate but are now not able
to do so, purportedly due to funding constraints within MMBC.
The RMRS Depot is also part of the MMBC program but under a separate contract.
Public Process to Determine the Level of Support for municipally administered garbage and
organics curbside collection
The legal mechanism varies dependent on the decisions Council makes relative to provision of
the service. Council needs to determine what level of service will be provided and to whom.
Once that determination is made the specific options for the legal process can be identified with
costs and timelines attached.
Council may wish to consider initially undertaking a process to gauge public support for a
municipally administered garbage and organics curbside collection. Council would first establish
the question it wishes to pose to the public, for example: “Do you support a municipally
administered curbside collection that would cost taxpayers approximately $x for bi-
weekly/weekly pickup of garbage and organics to area/property class?”
The process could include:
•A statistically representative survey conducted by a public research firm. The cost for this
could range between $4,000 - $8,000, or
•A non-statistically representative self-selected on-line survey managed by the City. The cost
for this, including staff time, could be in the range of $4,000.
Council could also consider including the following:
•Webpage development that includes description of proposed service, approximate cost of
service and responses for frequently asked questions.
•Advertisements in local papers
•Open House at City Hall
•Pop-up survey/information kiosks
Following receipt of the results of the survey Council would make a determination of whether or
not to proceed. If Council wishes to proceed to implement and regulate a curbside collection
service, full details of the legal process required and costs would be provided to Council. Costs
could range from $30,000 - $55,000 and take between 3-6 months to complete.
b)Desired Outcome:
The goal is to provide an efficient and cost-effective garbage and solid waste collection system
that would meet the diversion goals stated in the ISWRMP.
c)Citizen/Customer Implications:
Continuation of the current user-choice system or its replacement with a municipally
administered collection system, whether it be contracted-out or in-house, will not likely result in
noticeable changes in service levels to the residents in Maple Ridge; residents would still benefit
from curbside collection of garbage and organics.
Based upon recent contract awards for cities similar in collection area to the City it is not thought
that costs would vary much from current levels. The main difference would be that residents
would not contract individually with private haulers but rather that the costs would be included in
property taxes and that a municipally administered collection system would set mandatory
service levels for residents that would be consistent across the municipality.
d)Interdepartmental Implications:
Staff from municipalities across Metro Vancouver that currently have municipal garbage
collection programs state that regardless of even if the collection is contracted out there is still a
expectation from residents that they can and will contact staff if there is a problem with their
service. Should the City contemplate a municipally administered collection system, then there
will be a need to provide administrative resources whether that be in Engineering or Operations.
Education programs are important for the success of any program. Currently, RMRS provides the
education function for the City.
e)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The financial implications are dependent upon which direction is chosen. Continuation of the
existing user-choice option would not see any adjustment to the Financial Plan – the costs to
provide curbside recycling collection is already included, as is the cost of operating the Depot.
Implementing a municipally administered contracted-out service will impact the property tax
amounts or require an additional utility charge payable by each household. It is estimated,
based upon a review of recently awarded municipal solid waste contracts that the annual cost
per household would be in the range of $275 to $300.
An in-house municipally administered collection system is estimated to be in the range of $300
to $350 per annum per household.
For those residents currently receiving private garbage collection the cost of a municipally
administered collection program would be expected to be largely similar to what they currently
pay but for the sector of the population that deal with their garbage disposal independently it will
be a new charge.
f)Policy Implications:
Increased diversion of solid waste and recycling will ensure that the City meets its obligations
through the ISWRMP. The City’s current Corporate Strategic Plan, under the area of Environment
speaks to the “support of community waste reduction initiatives”.
g)Alternatives:
A number of scenarios have been discussed, ranging from maintaining the current user-choice
system through to the different types of municipally administered collection system.
CONCLUSIONS:
There are a number of ways to address solid waste (garbage, organics and recycling) collection in the
City and this report, as well as previous reports to Workshop - “Solid Waste Collection Options”,
dated March 30, 2015 and “Solid Waste Collection – Issues for Consideration”, dated April 20, 2015
seek to provide information for Council to deliberate on possible models moving forward.
“Original signed by David Pollock”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, PEng., MBA,
General Manager, Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Att: Map of Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Collection Areas
Summary of Ridge Meadows Recycling Society 2015 Budget
“Solid Waste Collection Options”, dated March 30, 2015 – Council Workshop
“Solid Waste Collection – Issues for Consideration”, dated April 20, 2015 – Council Workshop
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 30, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5380-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Collection Options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Through the departmental presentations to Council in the first quarter of this year, Council directed
that a report on solid waste collection options for Maple Ridge be added to the Work Plan for 2015.
In evaluating possible business models for solid waste collection in the City, the basic choice is
between maintaining the existing user-choice system where the City has no involvement in garbage
pick-up (excluding curbside and depot recycling) and the implementation of a mandatory municipally
administered garbage collection system that could be delivered through any one of a number of
options including contracting-out the collection service, implementing an in-house collection system
or potentially developing a franchise model which is in place in various states throughout the US.
In the preparation of this report, staff have contacted a number of municipalities in the Lower
Mainland to collect existing costs of garbage collection systems for both contracted-out and in-house
service delivery models to assist Council in their considerations of solid waste options within the City.
The introduction of the Multi-Material British Columbia (MMBC) Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP)
program for curbside and multi-family collection essentially decouples recycling from solid waste
collection. In 2013 the City, along with virtually all municipalities in the Lower Mainland, signed a
contract with MMBC whereby the City agreed to collect the curbside and multi-family recycling
collection in exchange for a per-household financial incentive. This program is in its infancy, having
been implemented in 2014, and while there have been, and there continues to be concerns
regarding the overall MMBC program, the City is working along with local governments and MMBC to
resolve outstanding concerns.
The City’s review of costs for each delivery model – the status quo, contracted out or in-house
resources – indicates that the true program costs are not markedly different for any one option. In
Council’s deliberations of the solid waste collection options it is respectfully suggested that the
decision would not be one based upon costs but rather that it would be philosophical in nature.
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the various options available for
garbage and organics collection throughout the City and to identify a range of potential costs to
assist Council in their consideration of the different delivery model options for garbage and organics
collection in the City.
It is understood that should Council wish to pursue a municipally administered solid waste model, a
mechanism to determine the Public’s opinion on the matter would need to be developed.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is for information. No motion required.
Attachment 3
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) developed by Metro
Vancouver (MV) in conjunction with the member municipalities governs solid waste and recycling
efforts within the Lower Mainland’s individual municipalities. The ISWRMP lays out a number of
goals, strategies, actions and measures under the overriding principle to reduce the volume of waste
generated through a waste reduction campaign, recovery of materials for recycling and energy from
the waste that remains. Whilst the ISWRMP sets out the targets for solid waste reduction, it is
incumbent upon each municipality to determine how they can best meet the stated targets as the
solid waste and recycling collection models vary from one jurisdiction to another.
To assist in achieving the stated goal within the ISWRMP to increase regional waste diversion from
the current 55% to 70%, material bans for organics and clean wood have been instigated, both of
which commenced in January 2015 although the main focus in the first six months is education, for
both residents and haulage contractors. Financial penalties by way of a 50% tipping fee surcharge
are expected to commence in the latter half of 2015; for organics, loads arriving at MV with more
than 25% organic waste will be charged the surcharge while for clean wood the contamination limit
is 10%. It is noted that organics (yard waste and food scraps) comprise some 36% of the total solid
waste produced, and clean wood makes up some 9% of the total waste, so removing them from the
waste stream has significant benefits in achieving the regions stated diversion goals. Under the
existing collection model in Maple Ridge, these financial penalties are the responsibilities of the
private haulers - there is no role or financial implications for the City.
In 2011 the Province of BC amended the BC Recycling Regulation to include the collection and
recycling of Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) which obligates the appropriate industries to assume
the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) role for the materials defined as PPP. A not-for-profit
agency, Multi-Material British Columbia (MMBC) was established to develop a Stewardship Plan for
PPP to comply with the Provincial regulation and is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of a
number of retail industry associations and companies such as the Retail Council of Canada and the
Overwaitea Food Group. MMBC developed a Stewardship Plan for PPP that was approved by the
Province in 2013 and was implemented in May 2014.
The MMBC Stewardship Plan includes the collection, post-collection, processing and commodity
marketing of PPP materials throughout BC with the goal of increasing the PPP recycling rate from the
current estimated rate of 50-57% to 70%. The City, along with the vast majority of MV municipalities
elected to participate in the MMBC PPP recycling program for curbside and multi-family collection for
which MMBC provides a financial incentive offer on a per household basis. In addition the City also
receives a financial incentive through MMBC to operate the Recycling Depot which is one of only
three in the Lower Mainland.
There have been a number of concerns raised by municipalities through the development and
implementation of the MMBC program and staff continue to liaise with other local governments to
improve the execution of the program. MMBC has expressed willingness to have dialogue with local
governments on issues of concern, where feasible and it is reasonable to expect “growing pains’ in
the early stages of the program. A significant concern for local government though is the question of
whether the funding of the PPP program is sustainable in the long term. There is a significant
proportion of industry that has not signed up to participate in the PPP program and there are already
signs of financial pressures in the implementation of the program – it is staff’s understanding that
there have been recent cases where a local government has indicated interest in having MMBC take
over recycling collection and MMBC has declined, stating that they don’t have the financial capability
to do so at this time. The impact on the overall program is not known at this time however.
Current Solid Waste Collection Practices within the City of Maple Ridge
Maple Ridge is singular in the Lower Mainland in not having a municipally administered solid waste
collection system in place, having instead a user-choice system whereby residents may enter into an
agreement with a contractor of their choosing, at a level of service that meets their needs. The cost
of the collection service to a property will vary depending upon the number of garbage cans and the
frequency of pick-up, whether that be weekly, bi-weekly or monthly so residents who follow a
comprehensive composting and recycling regime could expect to pay less than others who may
generate higher volumes of garbage. Residents may choose not to have curbside garbage collection,
electing rather to drop their waste off at the Metro Vancouver Transfer Station in Albion.
As previously mentioned, Metro Vancouver has implemented an organic waste ban in January of
2015. At this date it is understood that at least two of the four private haulers in the City provide
organics collection, and the others are proposing to initiate an organics collection program in the
second quarter of 2015. The costs quoted by individual haulers are similar in scale but the
programs are not the same – some offer automated and manual collection, others simply manual;
some provide totes, others require the resident to supply their own; some limit the amount of
organics containers, others offer unlimited containers.
The MV Transfer Station in Albion has a green waste and organic drop-off area for residents to utilize.
POSSIBLE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE MODELS FOR CONSIDERATION
When Council is evaluating possible business models for solid waste collection in the City, the choice
is between maintaining the existing user-choice system where the City has no involvement in solid
waste collection (excluding curbside and depot recycling) and the implementation of a mandatory
municipally administered garbage collection system that could be delivered through any one of a
number of options including contracting-out the collection service, implementing an in-house
collection system or potentially considering a franchise model which is in place in various states
throughout the US. This report will provide information on each delivery model to assist Council in
their deliberations regarding solid waste collection in the City.
The introduction of the MMBC PPP program essentially decouples recycling from solid waste
collection. In 2013 MMBC asked municipalities to state whether or not they were willing to
participate in the PPP program. All MV municipalities except Coquitlam chose to participate in the
program – in Coquitlam MMBC then retained a contractor to collect the recyclable materials in
Coquitlam with no involvement from the city. A number of municipalities who originally chose to
participate in the MMBC program have indicated they may remove themselves from PPP curbside
collection and turn the collection over to MMBC – typically as their municipal contracts expire. Given
the funding constraints of the MMBC program due to certain commercial companies not signing up
to the MMBC plan, there is no guarantee that MMBC would agree to have a municipality divest itself
of the curbside collection.
One challenge in assembling costs for Council’s perusal is to ensure that the comparison is “like to
like”. Most municipalities, whether the collection service be offered in-house or by an external
contractor offer a range of tote size – small, medium or large - for the purposes of this report the
default size is the medium tote, typically around 240 litres. The stated charge per household for
collection in a municipality may vary from the actual total cost of the service depending upon
whether or not all costs are stated in the charge - is the garbage tipping fee included, or the cost of
providing totes? Based upon a typical seven year life, the annualized cost for a city to provide
garbage and recycling totes per household is estimated approximately $28.
The typical collection frequency is bi-weekly garbage pick-up with weekly organics pick-up. The
collection methodology is moving to automated collection, complete with electronic identification
tags to record addresses. There are varying degrees of computer and camera automation on the
trucks.
1.Retain User-choice System
As previously stated, the current solid waste system in the City is a user-choice system that
allows residents a range of options for collection and allows each resident to choice the level of
service that best suits their needs. There are four private haulers that provide service
throughout the City. Typical costs for weekly garbage and organic collection as of March 2015 is
approximately $24 per month, or $288 annually. Each contractor has their own specific delivery
model for those prices – one provides the garbage and organic waste totes but limits the size of
the organic tote while another does not provide any totes but offers unlimited organic containers.
One stated concern about this option is the perception of a greater number of collection trucks
travelling across the City, with neighbourhoods having multiple contractors driving down their
street rather than one single truck. This is a reasonable assumption but difficult to verify – there
may well be potentially less vehicles from multiple companies, but collection trucks typically have
a split compartment for separating garbage and organics so when either side fills up the vehicle
has to drive to the unloading location which for the City is likely to be in Coquitlam. So a vehicle
picking up an entire neighbourhood will fill up quicker and need to drive to Coquitlam and back
more frequently, whereas the contractor collecting from subscribers will take longer to fill up as
they are not picking up at every house, so more time driving from neighbourhood to
neighbourhood, but not as many trips back to the drop-off location.
This option encourages competition between private haulers to set the cost for their collection
service at a price point that they believe the market will bear and that will attract customers.
Reviewing collection prices posted by contractors over the last three months since the
introduction of the organics ban indicates that at least one company has dropped their price by
approximately 37% in order to compete against another contractor.
Residents in Maple Ridge do have the opportunity to deliver their garbage and organics to the
MV Transfer Station in Albion where they would pay by weight, albeit with a minimum charge.
2.Municipal Solid Waste Collection System – Contracted out Service
Approximately half of the municipalities in Metro Vancouver contract out solid waste collection.
One advantage of contracting out garbage collection is that there is no burden upon the city of
purchasing truck and equipment, or hiring additional staff to collect the garbage. Based upon
discussions with staff in other local municipalities, members of the public do not differentiate
between a contractor and the city so other similarly sized municipalities in Metro Vancouver carry
three to four staff to deal with queries, missed pick-ups, resident education and engagement,
and administer the contract.
Should a decision be made to pursue a municipally operated solid waste collection program, a
Request for Proposal (RFP) would be prepared and issued for public bid. Such an exercise is not
insignificant, either in the preparation of the RFP document which would have to outline specific
requirements, performance expectations and conditions, or on the part of the contractors
responding to the RFP. On similarly sized municipal RFP submissions contractors have indicated
that the cost for them to prepare a RFP submission is of significant enough cost that it is
amortized over the duration of the contract.
City of Coquitlam
Coquitlam is the most recent municipality to go out to tender for contracted garbage and
organics collection (having opted out of the MMBC program) – they issued a Request for
Proposal in 2013 and implemented the program in 2014. The level of service for the
curbside collection of garbage of the approximately 25,000 residences is set at:
Bi-weekly garbage collection
Weekly organics collection
Includes the tipping fees for organics and garbage
A large item pick up (four times a year)
Education and outreach
Two unmanned recycling drop-off areas (outside the MMBC program)
Green waste drop-off area
The City has three tote sizes – 120L, 240L and 360L – and the annual charge of pick-up for
the default 240L sized tote is $287. A copy of Coquitlam’s utility tax information is
appended to this report indicating the annual charge per household.
Coquitlam supplies residences with totes and a separate contract was issued for the supply
of garbage and organics totes as a capital contract that came in at just under $3 million.
The stated expected life for the totes is approximately 5-7 years so the approximated
annualized cost is an additional $28 per residence, which is a real cost to the City but not
included in the $287 charge noted above.
City of Coquitlam staff have estimated that the cost of the quarterly large item pick-up and
the unmanned recycling depots equates to approximately $20 per household, so excluding
these items for comparative costs and adding in the tote costs would result in a total
estimated annual cost per household cost of $295 for garbage and organics collection.
As an aside, the contractor responsible for garbage and organic collection in Coquitlam is
one of the contractors that provides similar services within the City of Maple Ridge. This
contractor also provides the solid waste collection in the City of Surrey. Also, the total
number of households in Coquitlam is approximately 25,000 – the City of Maple Ridge has
approximately 23,000 households that receive recycling pick-up which would likely be the
number included in a municipally administered collection system.
3.Municipal Solid Waste Collection System – Using In-House Resources
The Cities of Port Moody and Port Coquitlam are examples of in-house municipal collection
systems. Port Moody used to have a contracted-out service but in 2011 the City elected to bring
the service in-house.
City of Port Moody
The City of Port Moody has approximately 6,500 dwellings and provides the following level
of service:
Bi-weekly garbage collection
Weekly organics collection
Includes the tipping fees for organics and garbage
Education and outreach
Port Moody has two tote sizes – 120L and 240L – and the annual cost per household for
the default tote size is $338. The cost of totes is not included in the $338 per annum so as
for Coquitlam an annualized cost of $28 should be added in to reflect true costs for a total
of $366 which excludes recycling.
The City does participate in the MMBC program and states on the City website that there is
no cost to the City for recycling as it receives the financial incentive but it does charge an
additional $38 per household for recycling items collected that are not included in the
MMBC program. This amount is similar to the cost that the City of Maple Ridge charges per
household for curbside recycling for service over and above that covered by the MMBC
program.
A copy of Port Moody’s utility tax information is appended to this report indicating the
annual charge per household.
City of Port Coquitlam
The City of Port Coquitlam services approximately 12,500 homes with the following level of
service:
Bi-weekly garbage collection
Weekly organics collection – May to December
Bi-weekly organics collection – January to April
Includes the tipping fees for organics and garbage
Education and outreach
Includes tote replacement costs (based upon a stated 15 year life)
Port Coquitlam supply totes for organics, garbage and recycling, all of which are offered in
two sizes, but the Port Coquitlam solid waste bylaw Schedule A shows no charge for
recycling, and a copy is appended to this report. It is respectfully suggested that Port
Coquitlam is a program where not all costs are visible in the annual charge of $176.30.
4.Municipal Solid Waste Collection System – Franchise Option
The option of franchising out the garbage collection is one that occurs in areas throughout the
US but it does not seem to exist in Canada at this time. The idea does not seem to differ greatly
from the first option discussed, namely the contracting-out of the collection service in that
contractors bid for the right to collect garbage, organics and recycling in accordance with
established performance expectations. Some local governments note that dealing with all
queries and collection complaints are solely the responsibility of the franchisee while others
recognize that there will be expectations for local government staff to respond and resolve
complaints and administration of the contract.
In the franchise option the contractor bills the residents directly and reports the monthly and
annual costs to the local government.
One unique aspect of the franchise option is that the contract requires that the successful
contractor pay an annual franchise fee to the local government which has been noted to range
from 5-12% between jurisdictions. This is built into the bill to the taxpayer.
In franchising solid waste collection within a city, no other solid waste collection contractors can
operate in that city.
The City of Snoqualmie in Washington State operates a franchise-model of collection system and
the program includes:
Contract is for seven years
Weekly garbage pick-up
Weekly organics pick-up
Weekly recycling pick-up (single stream)
Includes the tipping fees for organics and garbage
Includes totes
The contractor sells the recycling component and retains the revenue
The contractor issues billing and payments
The contractor addresses service calls such as missed pickup
The contractor pays the City an annual 12% franchise fee based upon 89.3% of the gross
receipts
The City has three tote sizes – 120L, 240L and 360L – and the annual cost of pick-up for
the default 240L sized tote is $426 (USD).
Factors that Influence Municipal Solid Waste Collection Contract Costs
As previously stated there are a number of factors that impact pricing and that make a direct
comparison with other municipalities quite difficult, including:
Is the collection area all urban, or are there rural areas included?
o In the City, private haulers will currently provide garbage collection service to
clients regardless of where they live.
o Most municipalities provide service only in urban areas. Including rural
properties will push prices upward given the additional travel times.
o If collection is limited to the urban area (which would likely include areas such as
Rothsay/Garibaldi that currently receive recycling collection) how are rural
residents served? Private haulers have indicated that they would not provide
services only to rural areas.
How dense is the urban area? Is the layout a consistent grid, or are there a number of
discontinuities perhaps due to ravines?
How challenging is the topography? Areas that are hilly cost more per household to
service than flat areas.
Where do the materials have to be taken for disposal – a higher turnaround time will
increase costs.
Standards for the vehicle fleet? All new trucks, or a re-purposed older fleet?
Bonding and Insurance. A municipal contract will require adequate performance and
insurance in place which has an impact on the overall rate. For the existing system, all
insurance costs are covered in the contractors stated rate.
It is important to acknowledge that should the City decide to opt for a municipally administered
collection system, whether it be contracted-out or in-house it would be very difficult if not
impossible to return to the current user-choice model.
b)Desired Outcome:
The goal is to provide an efficient and cost-effective garbage and solid waste collection system
that would meet the diversion goals stated in the ISWRMP.
c)Citizen/Customer Implications:
Continuation of the current user-choice system or its replacement with a municipally
administered collection system, whether it be contracted-out or in-house, will not likely result in
noticeable changes in service levels to the residents in Maple Ridge; residents would still benefit
from curbside collection of garbage and organics.
Costs would not be expected to vary much from current levels. The main difference would be
that residents would not contract individually with private haulers but rather that the costs would
be included in property taxes.
A municipally administered collection system would set mandatory service levels for residents
that would be consistent across the municipality.
d)Interdepartmental Implications:
Staff from municipalities across Metro Vancouver that currently have municipal garbage
collection programs state that regardless of even if the collection is contracted out there is still a
expectation from residents that they can and will contact staff if there is a problem with their
service. Should the City contemplate a municipally administered collection system, then there
will be a need to provide administrative resources whether that be in Engineering or Operations.
Education programs are important for the success of any program. Currently the Ridge Meadows
Recycling Society (RMRS) provides the education function for the City.
e)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The financial implications are dependent upon which direction is chosen. Continuation of the
existing user-choice option would not see any adjustment to the Financial Plan – the costs to
provide curbside recycling collection is already included, as is the cost of operating the depot.
Based upon published data by the haulers themselves, the current cost per household in Maple
Ridge using a private hauler to receive garbage and organics collection is approximately $288
per year.
Implementing a municipally administered contracted-out service will impact the property tax
amounts or require an additional utility charge payable by each household. It is estimated,
based upon a review of similar collection systems that the annual cost per household would be
in the range of $275 to $300.
An in-house municipally administered collection system is estimated to be in the range of $300
to $350 per annum per household.
For those residents currently receiving private garbage collection the cost of a municipally
administered collection program would be expected to be largely similar to what they currently
pay but for the sector of the population that deal with their garbage disposal independently it will
be a new charge.
f)Policy Implications:
Increased diversion of solid waste and recycling will ensure that the City meets its obligations
through the ISWRMP. The City’s current Corporate Strategic Plan, under the area of Environment
speaks to the “support of community waste reduction initiatives”.
g)Alternatives:
As identified in earlier sections of this report there are a number of models for solid waste
curbside collection that can be considered including:
Maintaining the existing user-choice system
Implementing a municipally administered collection system by contracting out or in-
house resources.
The contemplation of a franchise model.
CONCLUSIONS:
The reduction of garbage going to landfills by increasing the diversion rate of recyclable materials is
mandated in the Metro Vancouver ISWRMP. The efficient curbside collection of recyclables and the
operation of the Recycling Depot in Albion are significant in reducing the amount of materials being
deposited in regional landfills. The introduction of the organics and clean wood bans in 2015 will
further improve the Region’s overall diversion rate.
The implementation of the MMBC PPP program has essentially decoupled recycling from solid waste
collection as the MMBC program provides funding for curbside recycling collection.
There are a number of delivery models available as outlined in this report for Council’s consideration
along with the estimated costs per household based upon comparable programs in similarly sized
Metro Vancouver municipalities.
It is understood that should Council wish to pursue a municipally administered solid waste model, a
mechanism to determine the Public’s opinion on the matter would need to be developed.
“Original signed by David Pollock”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, PEng., MBA,
General Manager, Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Att: City of Coquitlam Utility Tax Information
City of Port Moody Utility News
City of Port Coquitlam Schedule A
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 20, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5380-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Collection – Issues for Consideration
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the March 30, 2015 Workshop meeting Council received a report entitled “Solid Waste Collection
Options”, the purpose of which was to provide Council with information on the various methodologies
available for garbage and organics collection throughout the City and to identify a range of potential
costs to assist Council in their consideration of the different delivery model options for garbage and
organics collection in the City. The robust discussion on solid waste collection at Workshop
generated additional requests for information to be provided to Council.
The intent of this current report is to encapsulate the questions on the topic of solid waste collection
that were raised at the March 30, 2015 Workshop. Should any additional issues be identified at the
April 20, 2015 Workshop meeting those would be included in the subsequent report, the intent of
which is to provide responses on the questions raised.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is for information. No motion required.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Staff presented the report entitled “Solid Waste Collection Options” at the March 30, 2015
Workshop, the purpose of which was to provide Council with information on the various options
available for garbage and organics collection throughout the City and to identify a range of potential
costs to assist Council in their consideration of the different delivery model options for garbage and
organics collection in the City. Following discussion by Council staff were requested to bring this
follow-up report, summarizing the questions raised by Council at the March 30, 2015 Workshop
meeting as per Resolution R/2015-139 and subsequent amending motion R/2015-141:
“That staff be directed to provide a follow up report in May 2015 on Solid Waste Collections which
will include discussion items from the March 30,2015 Council Workshop meeting and that an entire
morning be scheduled for discussion of the item” and
“That staff provide a report in two weeks summarizing items to be included in the final report to
Council.”
Attachment 4
The questions raised through the March 30, 2015 discussion may be categorized into three general
topics as follows:
1.Solid Waste and Recycling Collection
a.How many residents utilize the Metro Vancouver Transfer Station in Albion to dispose
of their residential garbage?
b.How many residents currently receive curbside garbage collection by private
contractors?
c.Of those that receive curbside garbage collection how many are within the urban
area, and how many are considered rural?
i.Part of this question is to ascertain what area of the City would be considered
as urban – as defined through the OCP and RGS or considering where there
is curbside recycling collection?
d.What area in the City currently has curbside recycling collection by Ridge Meadows
Recycling Society?
e.For an estimated cost of $275-300 per annum for curbside solid waste and organics
collection what would the equivalent tax increase be?
2.Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
a.What are the annual costs for the current RMRS recycling operation?
i.Separate out the costs for curbside collection versus the depot operation.
ii.What amount of the RMRS annual operations are funded by the City?
iii.Clarify the nature of the agreement between the City and RMRS.
b.Are there potential business opportunities for RMRS to consider, such as the
collection of organic waste?
c.What, if any would the implications be for RMRS should there be changes to an
aspect of their programs – eliminating curbside recycling collection, for example?
3.Public Process to Determine the Level of Support for municipally administered garbage and
organics curbside collection
a.What legal mechanism should be utilized to determine the support for proceeding
with municipally administered garbage and organics curbside collection?
i.Is a referendum the most appropriate method to determine community
support, or by the alternative approval process?
ii.What are the expected costs for each methodology?
b.What residents participate in the voting process – is it to all single family residences
throughout the City or limited to those residences that would receive the service?
c.How long would it take to prepare for a voting process, and would the timeline vary
depending on the type of process?
d.Should the City consider undertaking a statistically valid survey, or another form of
consultative process to determine the overall level of support for a municipally
administered garbage and organics collection system prior to proceeding to a voting
process?
Should there be further questions identified at Workshop, they would then be included in the
subsequent report to Council along with the questions noted above. It is respectfully suggested
that the information pertaining to the RMRS be presented in a separate report, in conjunction
with the aforementioned report on garbage and organics collection.
b)Desired Outcome:
The goal of this report is to ensure that all the questions that Council seek information on are
identified, to be addressed in a subsequent report to Council for discussion of this matter
CONCLUSIONS:
The March 30, 2015 report to Council identified a number of options available for garbage and
organics collection throughout the City and included a range of potential costs to assist Council in
their consideration of the different delivery model. Following discussion by Council at Workshop staff
were requested to draft a follow-up report, summarizing the questions raised by Council at the March
30, 2015 Workshop meeting. This report identifies the questions raised; should Council identify
other questions or subjects for consideration these will be incorporated in the next report to Council
on this matter.
“Original signed by David Pollock”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by David Pollock” acting for:
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, PEng., MBA,
General Manager, Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 1 of 15
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 1, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Update Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the February 2, 2015 Council Workshop, Council endorsed a consultation process for proposed
Tree Management Bylaw (No. 7133-2015) to generate feedback from the community and ensure a
transparent process for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw.
The consultation process included:
A Public Open House held on April 22, 2015
Written and verbal feedback from tree experts that work in the community, development
consultants, and local environmental stewardship groups;
Feedback from the public to staff through phone conversations, front counter inquiries,
emails and from ongoing tree permit application site visits; and
An on-line questionnaire about the proposed Tree Management Bylaw that was available to
the public for six weeks on the City’s website and at the front counter.
This report includes an update on the consultation process including a summary of feedback and
comments received from the following:
1.The Tree Bylaw questionnaires (639 returned) to the City of Maple Ridge;
2.Tree experts and technical experts and various stakeholders, (27 written comments);
3.Public Open House for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw which had approximately 140
recorded attendees; and
4.Over 80 permit applications and site visits with interim tree bylaw permit applicants over past
several months, in addition to emails, and phone calls from citizens.
The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the open house and feedback from the
questionnaires, as well as provide information on the next steps in the process. Also included in the
report is a summary of some of the recommended changes to the proposed Bylaw to address the
feedback received.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Update Report dated June 1, 2015 be received
for information.
5.3
Page 2 of 15
BACKGROUND:
Based on feedback from the general public and studies completed by consultants in the past, there
have been concerns in Maple Ridge about tree clearing practices, impacts from clearcutting and
large scale clearing on neighborhoods, and cumulative losses of tree canopy cover over time that is
changing the character of Maple Ridge. Furthermore, some claim the impacts from tree removal are
creating unnecessary risks, disturbances, and costs to adjacent land owners and to the City of Maple
Ridge.
Through extensive consultation during the Environmental Management Strategy for Maple Ridge
carried out in 2013/14, it was identified that tree protection and management was a high priority
and short term action item in the community. In November 2014 Council directed staff to prepare a
new Tree Management Bylaw and a consultation process with the community. An outline of the Tree
Bylaw consultation process was presented and endorsed by Council on February 2, 2015.
The Resolution was that the Tree Management Bylaw Review process outlined in the staff report
entitled “Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Process Report” dated Feb. 2 2015 be endorsed.
The purpose of the consultation process was to provide both stakeholders and the public with an
opportunity to review the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. There was one update to Council
included in the process after the Public Open House, Focus Group feedback, and questionnaire had
been completed. The first three steps have been completed. Step Four in process.
The following process was endorsed by Council:
Table 1. Tree Management Bylaw Process & Timelines
Step I – Council Endorse Review Process & Amendments to current Bylaw 5896-
2000
Council to endorse the Tree Management Bylaw review/consultation process;
Consideration and granting of 1st, 2nd, 3rd reading of Tree Protection Amending
Bylaw 7134-2015 at Workshop.
Feb.2,2015
complete
Step II – Focus Group Feedback – proposed “draft” Tree Management Bylaw to be
circulated to local professional tree experts including arborists, foresters, woodlot
managers, development consultants, environmental professionals, and environmental
stewardship groups.
Late Feb.
March
complete
Step III –Open House – consultation with general public & neighbourhood groups March /
April 2015
complete
Step IV – Consultation Update to Council – provide feedback on what we heard to
Council with presentation of Draft Tree Management Bylaw for consideration.
June 1,
2015
Step V - Council Consideration of Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reading and Final Adoption
Early
Summer
2015
Public Notification for Open House Event
It was proposed that various notifications were going to be used to assist in the consultation
awareness initiative including use of written invitations, email lists, social media, front counter
handouts, and information posted on the municipal website to engage the community and facilitate
ongoing dialogue throughout the planning process. The intent was to increase the effectiveness and
Page 3 of 15
efficiency of public engagement that will help strengthen the relationship between the municipality
and the community. All of these forms of notification were utilized during the consultation process.
Notification for the public open house was distributed in the following ways:
a)Municipal media, such as Maple Ridge website notice boards, Facebook, e-newsletter, and in
“Maple Ridge This Month” in local newspaper;
b)News bulletin distribution;
c)Community Events;
d)Newspaper advertisements; and
e)Emails to residents.
In addition to the above, word-of-mouth was also used as a way to help make people aware of the
event and distribution of emails to community stakeholder groups through the Social Planning
Neighborhood Development Coordinator.
TREE BYLAW CONSULTATION PROCESS
The consultation process in this report focuses on feedback from the community on the proposed
Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015 through the various consultation mechanisms. A brief
breakdown of the consultation mechanisms is provided with this report.
1.Background and supporting information. A copy of the previous presentations provided to
Council, staff reports on the Tree Bylaw public process, and a copy of the proposed Tree
Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 was available to the public for review both on line through
the municipal website, through email distribution upon request, and/or a hard copy of these
resources was available at the City hall front counter as well as at the Open House.
There are five key components to the proposed Tree Management Bylaw:
1.Application and scope of the Tree Management Bylaw
2.Tree Protection Measures
3.Tree Management requirements
4.Tree Replacement requirements
5.Exemptions and Fees
2.Tree Experts and Technical Stakeholders Findings
A copy of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw was forwarded to approximately 40 different
professionals associated with tree management and/or development activity in the community for
their feedback. This included tree experts such as foresters, arborists, and tree fellers as well as
development consultants, and stewardship groups. Approximately 25 questionnaires were returned
along with some emails providing feedback on the proposed bylaw. A summary of their comments
and suggestions is provided in Appendix B.
In addition, City of Maple Ridge staff met with tree professionals from various municipal
governments across the Lower Mainland on a number of occasions to discuss and review the
proposed Maple Ridge Tree bylaw. A copy of the comparative review on tree bylaws within the Lower
Mainland was provided to Council with the Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Process Report
dated February 2 2015 as part of the appendices.
Page 4 of 15
Some of the more prevalent comments and recommendations by these tree experts include:
General Comments
Size: 10 cm dbh is too small, too difficult to administer. 20 cm is more reasonable.
Significant trees: “shocked that large significant trees carry no weight. Maple Ridge has lost
many of its significant trees in recent years. City should be making an attempt to identify
what is left and ensure the bylaw considers these trees. Developers should be given some
kind of incentive to design around the high value trees and builder should be required to
work around them as well”;
Protection measures: “Important to have protection measures as part of a Tree Bylaw, to
ensure retained trees on development sites are properly protected during construction.”
Development related permits
Tree Management Plans. “more stringent measures are needed to force developers to give
tree retention much consideration before leveling and clear cutting a site.” A pre-
development process to protect and retain is crucial to smart development.
Permit Fees. Fees for development tree applications are too low and these fees are used in
other cities to employ qualified tree experts and staff persons needed to administer the
bylaws.
Education and Enforcement. Equal amounts of education and enforcement is necessary for
the tree bylaw. “Contractors need to understand clearly the reasons for root protection, and
the hazards to trees and people if they do not follow the setbacks.” Having an education
brochure or program as part of this will reduce the amount of resistance, and also provide
City staff with the answers when they are fielding questions and complaints.
3.Public Open House Feedback
On April 22, 2015 the City of Maple Ridge had a Public Open House for the proposed Tree
Management Bylaw and nearly 140 persons signed in. The City raised awareness in the community
about the event through multiple newspaper advertisements, through social media, advertisements
on the municipal website, handouts, emails, and through word of mouth to all tree permit applicants
and inquiries related to the tree bylaw.
Participants at the Public Open House were also provided with hard copies of the questionnaire
which they could hand in and comments were also recorded by staff persons attending the event.
The event was held at the City Hall and lasted from 4:30pm to 8:30pm. There were a number of
stations with display boards and staff persons to assist with questions. A powerpoint presentation
was also available for review. There were many residents in attendance that were concerned with
the application of the Tree Bylaw to the rural areas in that it might limit their ability to continue with
routine maintenance and firewood collection especially for larger wooded parcels.
Based on feedback from the hundreds of questionnaires, technical discussion groups, and feedback
from the tree permit applicants, staff provided some preliminary recommendations for changes to
the proposed tree management bylaw at the Open House for consideration. These proposed
changes are also included in this report for Council’s consideration and a more detailed summary of
recommended changes to the Tree Bylaw can be found under Appendix D of this report.
Page 5 of 15
For the Public Open House, feedback and dialogue was encouraged in the following areas:
1.Scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw
2.Protection measures
3.Management or mitigation measures
4.Replacement requirements
5.Fee structure and exemptions
4.Feedback during Interim Tree Protection Bylaw
There was a total of 87 tree permit applications submitted and reviewed under the interim Tree
Protection Amendment Bylaw from February 10 2015 until May 20, 2015. This interim bylaw was
introduced as a temporary measure during the consultation process for the proposed bylaw to
reduce large scale clearing on properties across the municipality and unsafe removal practices. The
interim Tree Protection Bylaw removed exemptions and requires that a tree cutting permit be
obtained for all tree removal in the City except for certified hazard trees.
Permit fees amounted to $15,096 within three and a half months. There were 35 applications in
rural areas and 52 applications in urban areas. Not including applications for clearing larger areas,
403 trees were cut during this period. This included 55 hazard trees and 21 Hazard Tree Permits
that were issued with no permit fees. Municipal staff were able to assist the vast majority of
residents by carrying out site visits, verifying hazard trees and issuing the hazard tree permit without
a Certified Tree Risk Assessment being carried out by a qualified arborist for each tree. Two tree
risk assessments were completed during this period at the City’s request.
Staff estimate the number of trees cut down on private lands during this three month period was
greater than what was officially recorded based on feedback from tree service companies and
observations by staff, but there were only a few complaints or calls made from the public about
unpermitted cutting. There are currently three tree enforcement related files in progress.
Each applicant was given the opportunity to provide input and send in a questionnaire on the
proposed Tree Management Bylaw.
Each applicant was also advised they could wait for the upcoming bylaw whereby permit fees would
likely be less than what is currently required. Each site was visited by municipal staff to determine
how the proposed bylaw might work or where there might be concerns with respect to fair and
effective application on the ground.
A summary of the statistics and staff observations made during recent Tree Permit applications and
site visits under interim Tree Bylaw is found in Appendix C.
5.Questionnaire for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw
Time Lines. The Questionnaire began online April 1, 2015 and it closed two weeks after the public
open house on May 8, 2015, lasting approximately six weeks in duration.
Focus. The Questionnaire focused on the following areas:
1.Scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw
2.Protection Measures
3.Management or mitigation measures
4.Replacement requirements
5.Fee structure and Exemptions
Page 6 of 15
Results. The success of the public consultation process can be seen in the resulting input from
residents. A total of 639 questionnaires were returned to the City which were all included in the final
summary and assessment. Approximately 200 questionnaires were returned to the front counter in
hard copy and the remaining 450 questionnaires were completed online. The hard copy
questionnaires were all converted into a digital format so their responses were included in the final
summary and analysis, which was completed through the survey program.
Note: This questionnaire is not a survey and it is not statistically valid. For example, there are no
controls over the number of questionnaires that could have been submitted by one individual. The
intent of the questionnaire is to get an idea of the interest from the community, the general support
opinions, or concerns from the community about the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, and the
nature of the comments and suggestions.
All of the responses and comments received by the City are attached in Appendix A along with a
summary of comments and copy of the questionnaire template.
Access and Distribution of Questionnaire. The questionnaire was available on the City website in a
digital format. It was also available in hard copy format for distribution over the Planning front
counter and at the Public Open House. A copy of the questionnaire is attached with Appendix A.
The questionnaire was distributed to technical stakeholders in the community including foresters,
arborists, tree fellers, woodlot managers, professional development consultants that work in the City
of Maple Ridge, to the Metro Vancouver inter-municipal professionals dealing with tree bylaws, and
to environmental stewardship groups representing different watersheds in the community such as
Kanaka (KEEPS), Alouette River (ARMS) and Grant Hill Watershed (TAPS) which includes Whonnock
Creek watershed area.
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
A total of 639 questionnaires were returned to the City which were all included in the final summary
and assessment. Fluid Survey, a software program designed to deal with online surveys and
questionnaires was used to collect, process, and analyze all of the information. It provides
statisitical analysis and generates reports including organization of comments. An abridged
summary of the assessment for the 639 responses and comments is attached with this report.
On average, there were approximately over 150 comments for each of the questions within the five
sections of the questionnaire. There were eleven questions in total which are included in the report
in Appendix A. Responses include a wide range of supporting comments, concerns, and specific
suggestions.
This report includes a brief quantitative and qualitative summary for the first question in each
section of the questionnaire to provide a better sense of the feedback. The more detailed
assessment report for the questionnaire in Appendix A provides a more comprehensive statisitical
and qualitative breakdown of the comments for each question within the five sections.
Page 7 of 15
Section One. Scope of the Proposed Tree Management Bylaw.
Do you agree with the scope of the proposed Tree Bylaw?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 53.3% 309
Agree 17.8% 103
Neutral 3.1% 18
Disagree 6.2% 36
Strongly Disagree 19.7% 114
Total Responses 580
Responses
The majority of respondents from both urban and rural areas (over 70%) agreed or strongly agreed
with the scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. However, there were significant concerns
about specific elements of the tree bylaw scope that were reflected in the comments.
Key Themes
Likes
Bylaw that is proposed considers the bigger picture including stronger tree management
requirements for new developments and consideration of future tree canopy cover for City.
Much needed bylaw. Learn from other cities that protect, manage and value the services
and benefits trees provide.
Trees need to be better protected/managed to retain the natural landscape. Everyone
should be responsible and this bylaw is a good start for Maple Ridge.
Dislikes
Concerns that urban and rural areas are being treated the same. For example, allow rural
land owners to continue to provide modest alterations to their land such as regular firewood
collection or routine yard maintenance, especially if they are already heavily treed.
Concerns with the definition of a tree. For example, expand historical size 10cm dbh to
something larger and exclude hedges from the bylaw.
Concerns about excessive permit fees, costs associated with possible hazard tree
assessments by qualified professionals, and cost of having to hire an arborist to supervise
cutting trees for routine removal of dead, dying, nuisance, or hazard trees.
Section Two. Protection of Trees.
Question 2.1 Do you agree with the proposed protection measures for retention or
replacement of trees within 5 metres of property lines, including protection of critical root
zones?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 54.5% 296
Agree 25.4% 138
Neutral 4.2% 23
Disagree 6.6% 36
Strongly Disagree 9.2% 50
Total Responses 543
Page 8 of 15
Question 2.2 Do you agree with the proposed incentives for retention of significant trees
above what is already regulated on development lands?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 55.6% 302
Agree 26.9% 146
Neutral 4.6% 25
Disagree 4.8% 26
Strongly Disagree 8.1% 44
Total Responses 543
Question 2.3 Do you agree with the proposed requirements for tree protection measures for
trees that are to be retained on site, including tree protection barriers?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 57.5% 313
Agree 25.0% 136
Neutral 5.5% 30
Disagree 4.8% 26
Strongly Disagree 7.2% 39
Total Responses 544
Response Nearly 80% of respondents agreed or highly agreed with the proposed protection
measures along property boundary edges in the Tree Management Bylaw. In addition, over 80%
agreed with incentives for protection measures and stronger protection measures for trees to be
retained on site.
Key Themes
Likes
Provide greater space within and around development layouts and building lots where
possible to promote retention or replacement of trees to encourge green neighborhoods;
The trees in Maple Ridge were very important when considering living here so please develop
new building lots, subdivisions and neighborhoods with this in mind. Ensure appropriate
requirements to deal with tree preservation with proposed changes to development layouts,
drainage, grading, and slope stability impacts; and
More emphasis should be placed on retention requirements along property edges to create
windfirm buffer for larger mature or old growth trees on adjacent properties.
Dislikes
Concern with lack of flexibility. Need to take into consideration the characteristics of a site
and surrounding area when addressing the merits of retention vs. replacement along
property boundaries (i.e. available space, condition of remaining trees & risks to nearby
structures, right tree right place, are there trees at risk on the adjacent properties or not?);
Concerns with lack of protection for well established, large, healthy groves of trees where
possible especially for new development;
Concerns about limited space. Five metre retention or replanting buffer along property edge
may be too large (i.e. smaller urban lots, built out areas, or high density zoning). Consider
suitable alternatives along property edge instead of trees ( i.e. fencing, hedges, shrubs).
Page 9 of 15
Section Three. Tree Management Requirements.
Question 3.1 Do you agree with the proposal to require Tree Management Plans for new
developments and large scale building applications?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 59.7% 321
Agree 30.5% 164
Neutral 2.4% 13
Disagree 2.8% 15
Strongly Disagree 4.6% 25
Total Responses 538
Question 3.2 Do you agree with the proposal to require management of impacts associated
with large scale clearing or tree removal on ‘non-development’ sites including fill
applications or large scale clearing?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 60.8% 327
Agree 26.4% 142
Neutral 4.6% 25
Disagree 2.6% 14
Strongly Disagree 5.6% 30
Total Responses 538
Response. Over 90% agreed that tree management plans were a good idea for development
applications and for large scale building applications. Over 80% agreed or strongly agreed that large
scale clearing on private lands should require stronger tree management measures proposed in the
Bylaw to ensure safe, responsible removal of trees including consideration of adjacent property
owners, vulnerable areas, and character of neighborhoods.
Key Themes
Likes
Every land owner should be responsible for maintaining a minimum amount of their property
with some tree coverage including non development related permits and agricultural lands
The size, shape, and location of new developments and building structures, outbuildings, and
impervious areas should accommodate retention & management of significant trees on their
sites where possible
What many people value most about living in Maple Ridge is the closeness to nature – this
needs to be protected and preserved in both urban neighborhoods and rural areas.
Everyone should be responsible.
Dislikes
Don’t want to see large trees replaced with smaller trees.
Will City provide any additional staff to help reduce costs to landowners to assist with hazard
tree assessments, appropriate replanting measures, or determine if exemptions apply?
Developers, builders and homeowners will need additional education and outreach to
ensure responsible cutting practices both on site as well as to protect adjacent landowners
and sensitive protected areas.
Page 10 of 15
Section Four. Replacement Tree Requirements.
Question 4.1 Do you agree that all tree permits should require replacements if a minimum
number of trees (16 trees/acre) are not retained?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 33.7% 179
Agree 42.7% 227
Neutral 7.2% 38
Disagree 7.0% 37
Strongly Disagree 9.4% 50
Total Responses 531
Question 4.2 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Replacement requirements for
development related applications?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 49.3% 262
Agree 33.9% 180
Neutral 4.7% 25
Disagree 5.8% 31
Strongly Disagree 6.2% 33
Total Responses 531
Question 4.3 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Replacement requirements for non-
development activity on private property?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 48.8% 259
Agree 27.1% 144
Neutral 3.2% 17
Disagree 6.8% 36
Strongly Disagree 14.1% 75
Total Responses 531
Page 11 of 15
Question 4.4 Do you agree with an exemption from Replacement Tree requirements on
agricultural zoned lands that are actively being farmed?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 9.2% 49
Agree 12.2% 65
Neutral 7.0% 37
Disagree 21.1% 112
Strongly Disagree 50.5% 268
Total Responses 531
Response. For question 4.1 over 75% of residents agree or strongly agree that tree replacement
should be required for all tree permits where minimum number of trees are not being retained on
site. For question 4.2 there was over 80% agreement for minimum replacement requirements on
both development lands. Results were similar for question 4.3 which applies to non-development
lands. In question 4.4, over 70% disagreed that agricultural zoned lands should be exempt from
proposed replacement tree requirements if they don’t meet the minimum retention requirements.
Key Themes
Likes
Need further clarity around acceptable size/species for replacement especially in urban
areas or where parcels and building lots may already be restricted
Consider size, health, and diversity of trees that are being replaced especially replacement
values associated with larger healthy mature or old growth trees
Retention of healthy mature or old growth trees should be a priority over replanting or cash in
lieu options where possible.
Dislikes
Need to retain more trees than 16/acres, 40/hectare as this ratio is low compared to other
cities. What is this ratio based on?
The number of required replacement trees is excessive especially for smaller urban lots
where a fully mature tree might create hardships for a property owner
Please consider flexible replanting requirements, i.e. allow for right tree in right place in
urban and rural areas and consider life cycle of trees, risk factors, and space requirements
for homeowners in replacement plans.
Section Five. Tree Permit Fees and Exemptions.
Question 5.1 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Permit fee structure?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 4.3% 23
Agree 9.1% 48
Neutral 6.4% 34
Disagree 20.0% 106
Strongly Disagree 60.1% 318
Total Responses 529
Page 12 of 15
Question 5.2 Do you agree with the proposed list of exemptions (no fee required)?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 4.9% 26
Agree 11.9% 63
Neutral 6.4% 34
Disagree 17.6% 93
Strongly Disagree 59.2% 313
Total Responses 529
Response. The majority of the concerns with the proposed Tree Management Bylaw fell into section
five, which focused on the permit fee structure and exemptions that were being proposed in the
Bylaw. Between 80% to 90% of respondents noted they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
proposed fee structure and exemptions.
There was a significant split in the respondents that disagreed with respect to concerns about
insufficient fees for protection of larger trees vs. high cost of fees for rural land owners. Rural land
owners generally thought a more reasonable and flexible permit fee structure for non development
related tree removal permits was needed. Additional exemptions should be provided for residents
from rural areas to allow for routine tree cutting for firewood and maintenance on an annual basis.
Key Themes
Likes
Developers should pay more for permit fees or for large scale clearing which can contribute
towards staff positions to assist with enforcement, education, permit review, and assistance
to private property owners with tree issues.
Dislikes
Need greater flexibility with respect to exemptions and permit fees for cutting of firewood or
routine maintenance especially in rural areas
Fee structure is too permissive and doesn’t provide a disincentive for tree removal
Costs should be more reasonable so public will cooperate with the bylaw
It’s too easy to have an arborist state that a tree is a hazard tree without City review
City staff person should be provided to assess hazard trees for single family homes
Arborist report for tree risk assessment will cost a lot for homeowners
There are too many exemptions
Private properties should be exempt from permits
Agricultural property should not be exempt from permits because they need to be
responsible as well for managing impacts on adjacent properties.
A more detailed statistical breakdown of the questionnaire, including a breakdown of responses and
comments can be found within the report and in the attachments under Appendix A. A copy of all
the comments is also attached with this report in addition to comments and feedback from technical
stakeholders, permit applicants, and from the Public Open House held on April 22, 2015.
Page 13 of 15
SUMMARY OF TREE BYLAW CONSULTATION RESULTS
Overall, there was an exceptional response from the community with 639 questionnaires that were
completed and returned to the City. The Public Open House on April 22, 2015 was very well
attended with over 140 persons on record which is generally a very high participation rate. In
addition there were 87 tree permit applications submitted during the interim tree bylaw period from
February 10 up until May 20 2015. Comments from these permit applications were also generated.
Staff received feedback from property owners, reviewed each property and application using site
visits, and recorded observations about potential opportunities/ challenges for the proposed Tree
Management Bylaw.
Based on written feedback from emails and the questionnaires that were received either on line,
through hard copy over the counter, verbal feedback through the Public Open House and over the
phone, there were significant differences with respect to feedback for the proposed Tree
Management Bylaw from residents that reside in urban areas vs. those who reside in rural areas.
Common themes included the following:
Rural Feedback. The majority of the concerns or recommendations echoed by residents from the
rural areas was about the need for more flexibility in the proposed Tree Management Bylaw for
dealing with larger parcels that are treed. Rural residents need to cut down some trees every year
for routine firewood collection or maintenance of forested lands. Such activity includes removal of
hazard trees, dead or dying trees, and trees that create hardships for property owners. It was also
noted that farms should be given special consideration with respect to costs and clearing
restrictions.
Urban Feedback. For urban residents, the majority of their comments focused on the need for
appropriate retention and replacement criteria on smaller urban lots to suit the limited space
available, (i.e right tree right place). There were a lot of comments emphasizing the importance of
identifying and retaining unique, mature or old growth trees where possible to protect the natural
heritage of a neighborhood. Retention should be considered for large healthy trees before
replacement. There should be more incentives for private property owners to retain or protect
significant trees on their lots. Adequate resources for education, outreach, and enforcement is
important for the success of the bylaw.
Common Ground. There was also a fair amount of common ground about the urban and rural
landscape with respect to trees. Common themes and comments included:
Support for the scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, protection and management
measures especially for development related activity because it considers both short and
long term costs and benefits to the community in addition to liveability and natural beauty.
Support for more responsible tree management practices especially for new development
and avoidance of large scale clearing because it will helps landowners and neighbors reduce
potential costs, risks and issues related to inappropriate tree clearing.
Suggestions from urban and rural residents about changing the definition of a ‘tree’ including
increasing minimum tree size in the bylaw and exclusion of hedges.
Need for stronger regulations around spacing of development layouts and building lots to
accommodate significant tree stands and provide enough space along property boundaries
to retain or replace trees where possible to protect adjacent sites from negative impacts.
City of Maple Ridge needs to catch up with other municipalities in terms of how it regulates
and manages the urban forest and trees. Tailor the bylaw to local context and unique
qualities that residents came to the City for in the first place. Consider how the City can
make this an effective bylaw without having to significantly increase costs to landowners.
Page 14 of 15
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED TREE BYLAW
Based on the feedback raised during the consultation process and further review of tree permit
applications over the past several months, the following changes are recommended to the Tree
Management Bylaw 7133-2015 which are included below.
A more detailed outline of the key changes recommended to the proposed Tree Management Bylaw
are included with this report in Appendix D. Some of the key changes that are recommended for the
proposed Tree Management Bylaw include:
1.Update the application of the bylaw. Expand the minimum size of a tree from 10cm to 20
cm dbh and exempt hedges in the proposed Tree Management Bylaw.
2.Provide permit exemptions for up to 5 trees per year in rural areas for parcels over 5 acres in
size including parcels located within urban reserve areas as long as they retain a minimum
number of trees (16 trees per acre over 20cm diameter dbh) and trees to be cut are not
greater than 50 cm dbh in which case a permit will be required.
3.Expand permit fee exemptions in both urban and rural areas to include hazard trees, dead or
dying trees, trees within 2 metres of a structure or infrastructure and tree removals for valid
farming activity.
Although staff are recommending permit fee exemptions for non development applicants for
certain situations, the requirement for a tree cutting permit will still provide City staff with an
opportunity to verify the status of trees that are to be removed and that removal is not going
to result in potential negative impacts to adjacent properties including City lands and
protected areas.
If the City is provided with the opportunity to review a site and confirm the health status of
the tree, then staff can waive the permit fee.
Staff will also attempt to assist private property owners where possible with tree risk
assessments to reduce costs of having to hire a certified risk assessor. For municipal
approved hazard trees and dead or dying trees no permit fees are required.
4.Provide a more flexible permit fee structure including:
Permit fee exemptions for dead, dying, hazard trees for all non development sites
$50 permit fee up to 20 trees
5 trees exempt per year in rural area if proposal meets minimum retention ratio
of 16 trees per acre or 40 trees per hectare
$50 permit fee for sixth tree in rural area up to 20 trees;
$150 permit for greater than 20 trees with $25 per tree above 20;
$500 permit fee required for trees over 50cm unless approved as hazard tree or
dead tree by the City of Maple Ridge;
$500 permit for development and large scale removal or clearing of 1 acre or
more with $25 per tree above 20 trees up to maximum of $17,000 per acre;
Agricultural properties with farm status are exempt from permit fees if tree
removal is required for farming but evidence of intent to farm is required.
5.Minimum retention requirements of 16 trees per acre or 40 trees per hectare ratio will
determine if replacements or cash in lieu is required for all development and non-
development related properties where a tree permit is required.
A copy of the recommended changes to the proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 is
found in Appendix D where changes are highlighted in yellow.
Page 15 of 15
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS AND LEGAL REVIEW
Staff from Planning, Parks, Bylaws, Building, Engineering, Operations and Fire Department will
continue to be included in the consultation process. The revised Bylaw has been and will continue
to be reviewed by the City Solicitor prior to presentation of the Proposed Tree Management Bylaw to
Council for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Readings.
NEXT STEPS
Pursuant with the Council approved process, staff will prepare the proposed Tree Management
Bylaw 7133-2015 with amended changes, and will bring the bylaw to Council Workshop for
discussion. Council feedback on the recommended changes within this report needs to be
considered for the final draft Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015.
CONCLUSIONS
Steps One, Two and Three of the Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Process have been
completed. This report provides a summary of outcomes from the open house, discussions with tree
experts and related development consultants, and feedback from the questionnaires. This report
also includes a summary of some of the recommended changes to the proposed Bylaw based on the
feedback received to date.
“Original signed by Chuck Goddard” for
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Rod Stott
Environmental Planner
“Original signed by Gail Szostek”
_______________________________________________
Co-Prepared by: Gail Szostek
Environmental Technician, Certified Arborist
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Jim Rule”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Questionnaire Summary and Comments
Appendix B - Summary of Feedback from Tree Experts & Consultants
Appendix C - Summary of Tree Permit Applications and Observations
Appendix D - Recommended Changes to Proposed Tree Mgmt Bylaw
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Tree Bylaw Question naire Summary Report
Please indicate to us which group you represent.
Response Chart Percentage Count
Resident 94.8% 606
Business Owner 0.5% 3
Professional Consultant 3.6% 23
Environmental Group 0.6% 4
Developer 0.5% 3
Total Responses 639
The vast majority of the questionnaires were submitted by residents, over 94%.
Section One. Scope of Tree Management Bylaw
Question 1
Do you agree with the scope of the proposed Tree Bylaw?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 53.3% 309
Agree 17.8% 103
Neutral 3.1% 18
Disagree 6.2% 36
Strongly Disagree 19.7% 114
Total Responses 580
580 responses
53.3% strongly agree
17.8% agree
3.1% neutral
6.2% disagree
19.7% strongly disagree
APPENDIX A
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
164 written comments
38% related to rural properties and property ownership rights:
Want more flexibility & fair treatment for routine cutting especially in rural areas for
properties with lots of trees which requires routine tree maintenance to deal with hazard
trees, dead or dying trees, trees creating hardship, and annual firewood requirements.
Concerned with high permit costs & cost of arborist report which would impose hardship on
land-owners especially where properties have lots of trees that require regular treatment
Want freedom to remove hazard/dead or dying trees without having to go through extensive
delays, expensive permit fees, or costs of getting a Certified Hazard Tree Assessment
completed by a certified arborist for every tree especially if it is obviously a hazard tree.
Concerned with clear-cutting & large clearing on rural lands and impacts on adjacent sites,
including groundwater impacts, drainage concerns, and blowdown issues.
Good concepts but understand that the majority of rural land owners have been successfully
managing trees on their own land in the past in a responsible way so continue to allow for
modest alterations to land and for tree cutting in the future.
Minimum retention and replanting requirements should apply to every property including
agricultural lands.
32% general support for the scope of the proposed tree management bylaw:
Bylaw could be stronger on protection requirements for larger trees/old growth
Much needed bylaw, considers the future/bigger picture. Learn from other cities that
protect, manage and value the services and benefits trees provide before it is too late.
Urban and rural character of Maple Ridge is changing as we develop and grow. Trees needs
to be better protected/managed to retain the natural landscape that attracted so many
citizens to move here in the first place and trees provide many benefits. Long overdue.
Should use the permit process to track and monitor impacts, losses/gains, and costs vs.
benefits. Information could be used to report back and determine next steps for forests
Need to improve awareness of benefits and services trees provide to the community. Also
need to pass protection and replanting responsibilities along to builders and home owners.
Want to prevent clear-cutting and large scale tree removal to support more sustainable
development and retention of healthy forest ecosystems where possible.
Agree with the effort to regulate irresponsible tree-cutting practices across entire municipality
including large scale clearing, unsafe cutting practices. This is likely going to require
adequate resources to assist landowners, to educate, and to enforce properly.
Want to live in a community that respects its environment, recognizes the values that trees
provide, and that incorporates these into new developments, in rural areas, and older
established neighborhoods where everyone has a duty to manage trees responsibly.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
20% related to tree definition and size (dbh) requirements:
Too restrictive with respect to definition of tree.
The proposed 10 cm dbh is too small, 15-30cm dbh are suggested
Differentiate between trees and hedges and allow for pruning in the bylaw
6% related to associated fees and permitting process:
Worried that the permit process and associated fees will prevent landowners from
maintaining their own trees or removing them, putting adjacent properties at risk
Don’t want to pay for an arborist every time or for a tree permit, fees are too high
Will City provide any technical assistance to homeowners to avoid extra costs and/or delays
for dealing with danger trees or removal of dead and dying trees?
Don’t want to pay for a qualified arborist to determine if a tree is a hazard or have to
supervise removal of trees every time tree removal is required
4% related to enforcement:
Bylaw is only as good as its enforcement and educational outreach
Who will enforce it? Additional Maple Ridge staff resources available to do this?
Section Two. Tree Protection Measures
Question 2.1 Do you agree with the proposed protection measures for retention
or replacement of trees within 5 metres of property lines, including protection of
critical root zones?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 54.5% 296
Agree 25.4% 138
Neutral 4.2% 23
Disagree 6.6% 36
Strongly Disagree 9.2% 50
Total Responses 543
543 reponses
54.5% strongly agree
25.4% agree
4.2% neutral
6.6% disagree
9.2% strongly disagree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Question 2.2 Do you agree with the proposed incentives for retention of
significant trees above what is already regulated on development lands?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 55.6% 302
Agree 26.9% 146
Neutral 4.6% 25
Disagree 4.8% 26
Strongly Disagree 8.1% 44
Total Responses 543
543 responses
55.6% strongly agree
26.9% agree
4.6% neutral
4.8% disagree
8.1% strongly disagree
Question 2.3 Do you agree with the proposed requirements for tree protection
measures for trees that are to be retained on site, including tree protection
barriers?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 57.5% 313
Agree 25.0% 136
Neutral 5.5% 30
Disagree 4.8% 26
Strongly Disagree 7.2% 39
Total Responses 544
544 responses
57.5% strongly agree
25% agree
5.5% neutral
4.8% disagree
7.2% strongly disagree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
97 written comments for Section 2
51% general support for tree protection:
The bylaw needs to be stronger with respect to protection of well established, large, healthy
groves of trees where possible especially for new development. Work around these areas.
The trees in Maple Ridge were very important when considering living here so please develop
new subdivision and neighborhoods with this in mind. More emphasis should be placed on
retention rather than replacement, especially for larger mature or old growth trees.
Protection requirements along property boundaries must include consideration of
appropriate protection measures for trees on adjacent properties from blowdown impacts, or
impacts associated with changes to drainage, grading, and slope stability impacts.
Require more landscaping space or space around building envelopes to be able to retain or
plant trees in new developments and building lots rather than having structures so closely
spaced together.
If developers need to protect larger heathy trees on site where possible, then the builder and
homeowner should be required to protect them as well. City needs to include sufficient
regulations, outreach, and resources available to ensure consistent, effective approach.
Consider additional requirements for siting and sizing the house for new building permit
applications to retain as many mature, unique, or significant trees as possible on site,
especially if development is being done within an environment development permit area.
Consider incentives for both developers as well as private property owners that wish to
preserve mature or old growth forests on their lands within the developable areas.
24% related to concerns associated with protection of trees:
Need to take into consideration the characteristics of a site and surrounding area when
addressing the merits of retention vs. replacement along property boundaries i.e. available
space, health of existing trees & risks, appropriate species, are there trees at risk from
blowdown on adjacent properties or not?
Practice of clearing first and planting later is more cost effective to developers/builders and
is reflected in the cost transferred onto the homeowner.
5m may be too large of an area for protection of trees for smaller urban lots or along the side
of a building lot within a new development where there often isn’t a lot of room with higher
density zoning or on complex sites. Some flexibility may be required for suitable alternatives
along property edge i.e. fencing, hedges, shrubs.
5m makes site planning difficult and decreases density for new developments especially
building lots, this needs to be balanced with affordability of housing and site characteristics
Need to consider potential tree root impact on adjacent septic fields and building structures
Diversity, distribution, and size of replacement trees should be considered especially in
urban areas with smaller lots
Property owners should be able to remove trees and maintain their property as they see fit
especially if they already have an abundance of trees or if they planted the trees in first place
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Should be a mechanism for adjacent land owner to voice concerns with proposed tree
clearing if there is a question about location or ownership of a tree(s) selected for removal
12% related to providing incentives for retaining significant trees:
Incentives are a good idea, but would likely need to be significant to encourage a developer
or land owner to change their development layout.
City should provide tax break for people willing to protect forest areas on private property
No density bonus for retaining trees rather there should be stricter regulations
Requirements for retention of healthy trees should be included in bylaw especially on
development sites where no environmental protection is required. Replacement should not
be an option if trees are healthy. Site plans need to consider appropriate grading, drainage.
Development should have to work around existing trees to maintain established trees,
incentives would need to be worded to be more than just encouragement to protect trees
Incentives should be available to everyone, not just on development lands; but there should
be no bargaining and clear advantage to the City
Need clarification on definition of “significant tree”, may cause too much confusion, just stick
with minimum requirements to be met
Mixed feeling on incentives, worried about developers contravening the OCP for greater gain
with little return to the City
No point in having tree protection if people with money can buy their way around it
13% related to tree education, awareness and enforcement measures:
Need to enforce and monitor temporary tree protection during construction especially on
development and building sites for trees that are supposed to be protected
Poor transfer of knowledge from developer to builder to home owner around tree protection
and these trees often get damaged or removed without adequate awareness.
Consider additional tree protection measures for old growth or mature tree stands
Figure out a way to work with Crown lands and other stakeholders that manage trees outside
the municipal boundaries to ensure adequate protection or management measures
Field inspectors should ensure the contractors aren’t getting too close to protected trees
Need to have the education for staff, contractors, public, and other stakeholders
Somebody should be responsible for ensuring the protection measures are adhered to
Need to have adequate enforcement resources for it to be effective
City needs sufficient staff resources and permit process to assist citizens with timely and
cost effective removal of hazardous, dead, or dying trees
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Section Three. Tree Management Requirements
Question 3.1 Do you agree with the proposal to require Tree Management
Plans for new developments and large scale building applications?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 59.7% 321
Agree 30.5% 164
Neutral 2.4% 13
Disagree 2.8% 15
Strongly Disagree 4.6% 25
Total Responses 538
538 responses
59.7% strongly agree
30.5% agree
2.4% neutral
2.8% disagree
4.6% strongly disagree
Question 3.2 Do you agree with the proposal to require management of
impacts associated with large scale clearing or tree removal on ‘non-
development’ sites including fill applications or large scale clearing?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 60.8% 327
Agree 26.4% 142
Neutral 4.6% 25
Disagree 2.6% 14
Strongly Disagree 5.6% 30
Total Responses 538
538 responses
60.8% strongly agree
26.4% agree
4.6% neutral
2.6% disagree
5.6% strongly disagree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
71 written comments for Section 3
46% general supportive comments:
Don’t want to see large trees replaced with smaller trees.
Tree Management Plans should not apply to single family building permits or private
residences with regular maintenance requirements
Many people value most about living in Maple Ridge is the closeness to nature – this needs
to be protected and preserved.
What about phased clearing of rural lands with a maximum percentage that can be cleared
every year if they are not farming rather than allowing them to clear their entire properties?
Seems like this will help professional consultants such as foresters and arborists involved
with development applications or large scale clearing to do their jobs more effectively
Would like to see more appropriate choice of trees for right site i.e.. shorter trees planted
near power lines, instead of larger, pruned trees
40% related to where the management plans should apply and definition of terms:
Management plans should not be restricted to large-scale development but also extended to
larger scale clearing activity across the municipality
Need to clarify early on for developments what supporting tree studies are required
(hydrology, biology, etc.) to ensure safe, smart development
Rural properties should have the right to clear if they want to especially if it is farm land
Every land owner should be responsible for maintaining a minimum amount of their property
so it has some tree coverage including development lands and agricultural lands
New development and large-scale building applications should be managed to reduce
impacts on neighbours and surrounding sensitive features i.e. watercourses, steep slopes
Need to define and clarify “large-scale” building applications
Tree Management plans should accompany the tree survey/arborist report
6% related to cost impacts:
Don’t want to have to pay for permit to take a tree down on private property
Adds to cost of development, thereby increasing housing costs, trees can be replanted after
development
Good idea, but adding unnecessary costs to homeowner
Will City provide any additional staff to help reduce costs to landowners to assist with hazard
tree assessments, appropriate replanting measures, or determine if exemptions apply?
8% related to enforcement/staffing:
Will City have sufficient staff to assess the tree management plans?
Will City staff be able to provide help to homeowners with basic tree issues, such as safety
concerns without extra costs having to go through an arborist or a consultant?
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Section Four. Replacement Requirements
Question 4.1 Do you agree that all tree permits should require replacements if
a minimum number of trees (16 trees/acre) are not retained?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 33.7% 179
Agree 42.7% 227
Neutral 7.2% 38
Disagree 7.0% 37
Strongly Disagree 9.4% 50
Total Responses 531
531 reponses
33.7% strongly agree
42.7% agree
7.2% neutral
7.0% disagree
9.4% strongly disagree
Question 4.2 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Replacement requirements
for development related applications?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 49.3% 262
Agree 33.9% 180
Neutral 4.7% 25
Disagree 5.8% 31
Strongly Disagree 6.2% 33
Total Responses 531
531 reponses
49.3% strongly agree
33.9% agree
4.7% neutral
5.8% disagree
6.2% strongly disagree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Question 4.3 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Replacement requirements
for non-development activity on private property?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 48.8% 259
Agree 27.1% 144
Neutral 3.2% 17
Disagree 6.8% 36
Strongly Disagree 14.1% 75
Total Responses 531
531 reponses
48.8% strongly agree
27.1% agree
3.2% neutral
6.8% disagree
14.1% strongly disagree
Question 4.4 Do you agree with an exemption from Replacement Tree
requirements on agricultural zoned lands that are actively being farmed?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 9.2% 49
Agree 12.2% 65
Neutral 7.0% 37
Disagree 21.1% 112
Strongly Disagree 50.5% 268
Total Responses 531
531 reponses
9.2% strongly agree
12.2% agree
7.0% neutral
21.1% disagree
50.5% strongly disagree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Question 4.5 Do you agree with a cash in lieu option that will fund the City tree
plantings and education outreach programs for tree management?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 20.2% 107
Agree 36.9% 196
Neutral 15.4% 82
Disagree 11.9% 63
Strongly Disagree 15.6% 83
Total Responses 531
71% related to number or type of replacement trees proposed:
Concern about replacement criteria relating to shrubs/hedges vs. trees
Need definitions/clarity around acceptable size/species for replacement especially in urban
areas or where parcels and building lots may already be restricted
Need to consider size, health, and diversity of trees that are being replaced with
consideration for replacement values associated with larger mature or old growth trees
Tree retention should be the preferred choice over replacement if possible
Replacement should be a requirement for all lands where they do not meet the minimum,
rural agricultural lands should also be required to retain or replace up to minimum amount.
Clearing on ALR lands or agricultural zoned lands should not be allowed without a written
guarantee that no exclusion or development application will occur for at least 10 years and
they should have to replace or provide cash in lieu if they cannot retain the minimum trees
Size of what is being cut should have greater role in determining replacement ratios
Need to retain more trees than 16/acres, 40/ha as this ratio is low compared to other cities.
The number of required replacement trees is excessive especially for smaller urban lots
where a fully mature tree might create hardships for a property owner
15% general comments:
Concerns about valid farming activity versus increasing number of executive estates and
hobby farms which should be responsible for tree retention and replacement requirements
Everyone should be responsible for replacing trees up to the minimum retention ratio
Agricultural lands need to learn to work with the trees as well because they can provide a lot
of benefits to farming practices and long term agricultural objectives.
Should be protecting, retaining, and replanting around environmental protection areas
regardless of ALR status or agricultural land use.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Put in place a time duration for farming practices that is required if they are going to get a
break and ensure they cannot exclude the lands for development for at least 10 years
8% related to where it would apply:
Should apply to every home-owner/private property and agricultural properties
Should be a difference between urban and rural properties
Need more funds and resources to go towards education and outreach for the public on the
value of trees
Development-related applications and non-development private property, if either one is to
be clear-cut, then both should be subject to the same regulations.
There should be no clear cutting if possible on a site, rather there should be selective and
phased cutting to accommodate responsible development and farm practices.
6% related to cost/cash in lieu option:
Cash in lieu should only be the last option considered
Bond period should be at least 2 years
Should not be a cash in lieu option, only retain or replant option
Cash in lieu amount should be higher like some other municipalities
Removing trees already costs money and this is going to possibly add more cost
Question 5.1 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Cutting Permit fee
structure?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 4.3% 23
Agree 9.1% 48
Neutral 6.4% 34
Disagree 20.0% 106
Strongly Disagree 60.1% 318
Total Responses 529
529 reponses
4.3% strongly agree
9.1% agree
6.4% neutral
20% disagree
60.1% strongly disagree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Question 5.2 Do you agree with the proposed list of exemptions (no fee
required)?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Strongly Agree 4.9% 26
Agree 11.9% 63
Neutral 6.4% 34
Disagree 17.6% 93
Strongly Disagree 59.2% 313
Total Responses 529
529 reponses
4.9% strongly agree
11.9% agree
6.4% neutral
17.6% disagree
59.2% strongly disagree
240 written comments for Section 5
45% related to permit fees:
Fee structure is too permissive and doesn’t provide a disincentive for tree removal
Fees are too low
Charging to remove trees from private land is unfair and a burden to home-owners
Fee structure is too complicated
Developers can pay more
This is a cash-grab by the City
Cost should be more reasonable so public will cooperate with the bylaw
48% related to the proposed exemptions:
Exemptions should not require a permit
Dbh is the problem, should just be based on number of trees, most rural areas have trees
larger than 30cm dbh
Exemptions are too complicated
Distance from foundations and roofs should be wider
Need greater flexibility for cutting for firewood or maintenance
There are too many exemptions
Private properties should be exempt
Agricultural property should not be exempt
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Could encourage people to cut down trees before they reach a particular dbh to avoid paying
fees
4% related to the clarity of the exemptions and fees:
Too confusing
First 3 trees less than 30 cm, then up to 10 trees less than 30 cm in rural areas is confusing
Confused with fee wording (“less than$80…)
What will the fines be for enforcement?
Unclear if fee is per tree or per lot
Who determines that fee is not required?
3% related to the requirement for supporting arborist report for hazard trees or agrologist report for
trees on farmland:
It’s too easy to have an arborist state that a tree is a hazard tree
Don’t want to have to pay for tree risk assessment
City staff person should be provided to assess hazard trees for single family homes
Arborist report will cost more than the permit
Comments For Question One.
# Response
1. Clearly something had to be done to bring some balance to the tree removal issue. Key will
be to bring in a bylaw that meets objectives but also doesn't unduly fetter landowners who
want to make modest alterations to their landscape.
2. I agree that this should apply to urban but not rural areas. Rural land owners should have
modified rules with regards to tree cutting.
3. I feel that 10 cm DBH is too restrictive of a size to warrant permiting - Perhaps 20-25 cm
stems instead...?
4. A bylaw is only as good as the Districts ability to monitor it. In our past experience all you
did was call the developer and tell them that I called regarding them cutting down trees
that were to be left as a buffer. NOT an appropriate action.
5. If appropriate exemptions/ conditions are provided for land uses that are now being
included in the bylaw, this bylaw provides the opportunity for a more consistent, effective
and transparent way to protect tree canopy while acknowledging and accommodating
existing uses.
6. 15cm maybe more workable/acceptable. Height from ground where measured?
7. Trees affect the quality of life of everyone around, enhancing the livability or our
community . They also affect the integrity of the land and the wildlife (birds, small
creatures, other organisms of all kinds) that depends on them. Their removal should not
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
be taken lightly, and needs to be more than just a private decision.
8.No. I believe the rural areas of Maple Ridge need certain degree of freedom to address
tree related issues. My understanding is that the larger issue has been with developers
clear cutting lots. That might be an area where additional oversight might be warranted
but for your average home owner on rural property I strongly disagree that a permit be
required each and every time a tree is to be removed.
9.This is a good concept, but might benefit with some guidance on how many trees might be
allowable to remove from a property in a calendar year. Currently this reads as though all
trees on a private site could be removed at once if a permit is granted, where controlling
the number of trees that can be removed each year will help maintain tree numbers if that
is the goal of the bylaw. A reasonable limit can be based on the number of acres for a site,
or different slightly in urban versus rural areas, and have a provision for removing more if
the space is needed for new construction.
10.Maple Ridge is one of the last City's that has a large tree canopy compare to others
municipalities. I have been a long time resident and believe that is part of Maple Ridge
character that needs to stay in place for many years to come. I think with every tree cut or
removed should be replanted to keep maple Ridge natural green look.
11.Maple Ridge appears to be lagging behind other local municipalities with respect to its tree
cutting regulations and best management practices. Concepts are really good with the
proposed bylaw but it needs a little work on flexible measures for private property owners
especially for larger forested lots where many land owners already do a good job
managing their trees in a responsible manner. Keep it simple, cost effective, and make
sure it is still reasonable.
I applaud efforts to create a tree bylaw that recognizes the benefits and services that trees
provide including the cost savings to citizens. It is also important to my wife and I that the
City looks after the environment for future generations. Maple Ridge is unique that is has
such a wonderful healthy environment and attractive rural feel to it that is largely due to
its trees, rivers, and natural landscape. Please keep it that way.
The City needs to ensure appropriate regulations and best management practices are in
place especially for new developments or where large scale clearing is taking place in rural
areas which has nothing to do with farming practices. Consideration of regulations to
protect healthy forest areas where possible, to minimize impacts from tree removal on
neighboring properties, and replanting requirements are a good start especially for new
development lands. Once again, this needs to be balanced out with fair and flexible
measures for the average home owner.
12.10cm is far too small, many scrub trees such as ornamental cherry can reach that quickly
and without very much height. Either relaxing the diameter, or specifying types of trees
protected or height (high) would provide a better balance.
13.Rural lands should still have some greater leeway when it comes to tree removal.
14.People should be able to make decisions as to the use of their own property and should be
able to make a decision whether or not a tree should be cut down without having to pay
more "taxes" to city hall.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
15. I strongly agree with this bylaw, my wife and I moved to Maple Ridge 3 years ago, we
moved here because we enjoy the out doors so much. We want to live in a community that
takes pride in its surroundings, respects the environment and is able to blend growth with
nature. Blending nature with urban development in my view should be standard practice,
however as we have seen in other communities this is not always the case and I choose to
not live in those communities. I believe there is a real opportunity for Maple Ridge to set a
new standard with the integration of new bylaws and policies like this one to protect the
very things that keeps people moving, visiting and enjoying this beautiful community.
16. I have over 100 trees on my property . If a tree dies and is a danger to my grandchildren or
my home why do I have to go thru a bunch of red tape to remove it.
17. Expanded scope only for development permits, not individual homeowners. The current
bylaw is fine except for development permits. This question is awkward in that it lumps
everything in together.
18. I agree with this bylaw for the purpose of watershed protection, streamside protection,
wildlife corridors etc.
There has been no regulation of tree removal on rural lands. We have witnessed clear
cutting on Thornhill which has happened because there were few deterrents and
regulations in place to effectively stop this kind of activity.
19. One who owns their land should be able to do what they wish with their trees.
20. I don't think resident landowners should have to pay for a permit.
21. there appears to be no difference between any parcel of lot and large parcels which might
have many trees. The draft seems to be very restrictive on any tree maintenance on a
person's property and would cause way more problems and work for the city which really
has other more pressing issues. A property owner with less than one acre will find this
bylaw change oppressive.
22. I see the most important part of the new approach is the use of permits for “tracking and
monitoring” and not so much as a revenue source. I would even go as far as to have no
fees for some permits for the sole purpose of tracking activity and ensuring compliance
(on line permits). Permit number information will prove useful in reporting to Council
and the public when the bylaw is revisited or as cross-referencing to yearly reporting on
development activity. Over time it would also show how the City has improved its
management of its urban forests.
23. We have a 1.5 acre parcel in east Maple Ridge which has many trees , as we all know trees
grow from little seedlings to large trees quite quickly in a rain forest. We currently
maintain a balance with trimming and removing the odd tree otherwise our property
would be overgrown. Some trees need cutting as they become hazard trees near our
house. We do not feel your proposed tree bylaw is fair to individual property owners.
24. 10 cms is barely larger than a small fruit tree. Consider looking at 20 cms as a base point.
25. Very large trees should have more protection
26. More protection measures are required. What about protection measures for the larger
healthy mature trees or old growth trees that exist in the community?
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
27.This is a total money gouge ! I own property off 272 and somehow you seem to think you
can now take control of the land I pay taxes for by telling me not to cut down trees that are
4 inches!!!!! The new Mayor who had pictures for her election from decades ago that has
never been on council and her newly appointed band of delegates are so ready to make
their mark on our community that they have in a couple of weeks chased JR to retire ? JR
has run the now City with a great presence until these new good doers stepped in . I'm
sure there will be many residents that will vote yes to this tree bylaw sham like all the
people that live on rock ridge and the top of silver valley where every tree has been taken
down for more and more residential taxes ! Your cops are too busy with sirens and lights a
blazin , standing in plain clothes on corners busting drivers talking on cel phones to even
look at the drug dealers and homeless using needles on every corner in our city . Pick your
battles , you have a chance now that you have chased the person that got us here into
retirement . See you at the meeting which I believe is on the 22nd in the new chambers
that cost us how much ????? Pissed off resident and business owner for over twenty years .
28.I believe Maple Ridge is in dire need of a tree bylaw update, but I feel this bylaw is not the
right fit for our community, The fees associated with a permit (the permit itself, arborists
report, deposit for replanting, etc) are enormous! Many homeowners do not have the
money to do what is required to get a permit, let alone pay over $200 for a permit (must
be cash of course), but may have what many consider a legitimate reason to remove a tree.
If a tree is damaging a driveway or sidewalk, it creates a dangerous situation for
pedestrians and opens the homeowner up to a lawsuit is someone is injured on their
property due to it, yet that is not reason enough to qualify for a permit. There is no use in
fixing the driveway or sidewalk since, without addressing the problems from the tree, it is
throwing money away since the problem will re-occur.
The red tape surrounding development permits in MR have been found to have hindered
development here, and the red tape for tree removal permits will, I predict, a similar effect.
Potential MR residents or those residents purchasing properties will be deterred from
purchasing properties with trees for fear of the future costs associated with removal if the
need arises. This includes small lots with a lot of trees an little yard, as that would prevent
or limit peoples abilities to grow vegetable gardens, for example, since you cannot get a
permit based on too many trees for your lot.
I also question the ban on topping trees. Does this include cedar hedges which grow more
than a foot a year? If that is the case, the resale values of houses on our street would
negatively affected by our hedges in our front yard. We top them every 1-2 years so we can
keep the resale value of our house and our neighbours, while still enjoying our green
hedges. Not topping them would ruin the character of our neighbourhood and make it near
impossible for us to sell our house (we keep them at approx 15-20 feet, and within a few
years, would be taller than our 2 story house). If this is the case, I would feel forced to call
a tree service quickly before this bylaw passes to remove all our hedges before the bylaw
passes, which I would never dream of doing otherwise (which is exactly what Councilor
Bell wants to avoid happening so she is trying to rush passage through).
I hope that many parts of this bylaw can be re-written to take in to account home owners
trying to maintain and protect their properties and resale value. A lot of good a tree or tree
protection bylaw does for a home owner if it prevents them from selling their house even
when they need to, but cannot afford the penalties if they do not qualify for a permit or
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
even if they do, the fees associated. Our homes should not become a burden due to bylaw.
29. People in rural areas on acreage deal with trees on a regular basis, having them go through
a process such as this every time a problem tree needs to be looked after is onerous and
truly beyond the scope of the municipal government.
30. I have spoken to this matter previously. If enforced, the bylaws are generally good. But
because there's so little enforcement, Maple Ridge thinks a new, harsher bylaw will correct
things. I understand that aerial mapping provides a 'hammer' but it's the old story......lots
of laws, little enforcement. I don't see this new bylaw changing much except making
acreage residents that actually care for their land upset AND a new source of income for
taking a tree down on their property. It makes me want to move away......it's becoming so
hard living on acreage: no services, higher taxes for no services, no recycling, newly
'doubling' of taking a couple of bags of garbage to the transfer station......$20 minimum
now?!? It's all so ridiculous.
31. 10 cm or 4 Inches is barely a tree. At that diameter the tree is probably less than 8' tall.
Cutting trees of that diameter and needing a permit is profiteering at that stage by the City.
The size should be 10 inches or 25cm at a minimum. I understand that there is a need for a
bylaw to stop clear cutting on acreage in rural areas and preserve the natural areas of
Maple Ridge. There is no need to include Urban areas that have a few trees that are under
30 feet in height to be included in this bylaw.
32. It does not go far enough on the side of protection, or enforcement. It needs to be simple
and clear.
33. Our land, our trees, our Private Property . We have been living in rural Maple Ridge close
to 25 years. We have a lot of trees on our property, a lot of which are unsafe. We are
burdened with a lot of tree debris. We should have the right to remove any tree we want
on our property without being penalized. This proposed tree bylaw is absolutely
ridiculous. The process and cost is a big hinderance. We pay plenty of Municipal taxes and
have no City water, sewer, sidewalks, street lighting - only a road that is maintained - that's
about it.
34. I agree with the general conditions of the tree bylaw. My main concern as a design
professional is that the system have some flexibility. I have found that in many instances,
replanting trees on lots is not desired by all owners and many trees are removed soon
after development.
35. I can understand the reasoning for this but at the same time I feel that there is getting to be
too many bylaws governing peoples everyday life on their own property. The bylaw
should be resticted to developers. This is just another tax grab by government.
36. Any tree that could fall and hit a structure/home on any property should be able to be
topped or removed at the owners discretion. With the intensity of future wind storms
getting worse with global warming any tree large enough to hit a house and do damage
should be able to be removed without permit.
37. I think all trees in Maple Ridge, regardless of what piece of land they are on, belong to all of
us collectively, as they positively affect the collective environment we all share. I also
believe that all trees should be dealt with in a consistent manner in keeping with best
practices, and not subject to the uninformed vandalism of individual property owners
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
hacking away at their trees or removing them altogether for spurious reasons. I have a
number of trees on my own property, that I always contract a reputable tree company to
come and prune properly, and I pay for that expert advice and service. I expect others to
do the same.
I have seen a number of beautiful mature trees in my immediate neighbourhood hacked at
and removed in the 7 years I've moved to Maple Ridge. Every time I hear a chainsaw start
up now, I have a great deal of stress, wondering what beautiful tree I've come to love will
be gone or massacred.
38.Our land, our trees, our Private Property . We have been living in rural Maple Ridge close
to 25 years. We have a lot of trees on our property, a lot of which are unsafe. We are
burdened with a lot of tree debris. We should have the right to remove any tree we want
on our property without being penalized. This proposed tree bylaw is absolutely
ridiculous. The process and cost is a big hinderance. We pay plenty of Municipal taxes and
have no City water, sewer, sidewalks, street lighting - only a road that is maintained - that's
about it. This is one more money grab, Russian style, especially for rural areas.
39.This continues to make it more difficult to make a property harder to make the way a
homeowner wants. If a person owns a property and plants a tree- and it grows to a large
tree- but then decides it creates too much shade or too much maintenance, they should be
able to cut that tree down without having to go through the process being proposed. The
current system, has been working fine. If tree canopy is a concern, then I suggest that lot
sizes shouldn't be so small that people don't want a huge tree. One look on google earth
will show that bigger lots produce the desire for trees. Small lots tend to not have any-
even after many years.
40.Minimum tree retention requirements must be met on all properties.
41.What is the definition of "tree" in this bylaw? Does it go by height (over 20 ft)? By family
(fir/pine/cedar/alder)? I'm wondering because if someone wants to remove the 18 foot
hedging cedars that run down their fence will that be a violation of the 5 meter property
line retention/replace bylaw since it would significantly impact the neighbours privacy &
green-view?? There are many other very large shrubs/greenery used for hedges.
42.Since this will apply to all lands, perhaps the size the tree could be increased slightly to 12
or 15 cm?
43.I think 10 cm is too small on rural lands to control or require permits for, other than on
perimeter of the property and to protect watercourses. I think it would make this by-law
unenforceable. see more comments on last page.
44.About time
45.I agree as far as it goes. Should be broader and tougher
46.Tree removal does not just have the intended effect by the property owner in many cases:
tree removal (especially when multiple trees are removed) can have negative impacts and
therefore is very justified in the current format.
I think a caviet of allowing trees to be cut where visible signs of rot or decay are present
and other signs of ill health in proximity to property, such as a house, could be removed
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
without a permit, is appropriate.
47.rural areas should not have a tree size limit of 10 cm. Most trees that create a problem on
rural properties are much larger and are dealt with one at a time by the residents. Wind
storms cause lots of tree damage.
48.Especially in Development proposals where they are clearing land for subdivisions to give
eco systems some sort of chance.
49.This new proposed by law goes too far, especially for the average Joe living in a sub
division. Trees may grow far to large for a small lot, or may have been planted in an
unsuitable spot by previous owners. Property owners should have the right to landscape
as they see fit. Not dictated.
Your proposed fees are out of line. This is Maple Ridge - not West Vancouver. The cost
involved hiring arborists and creating plans for replanting are absurd. What are the City's
costs involved re administration? What about by law enforcement costs?
I pay more than enough taxes as it is. Maybe we should change City of Maple Ridge to City
of Big Brother.
50.I'm a resident of a rural area. There's no reason to limit private/non-development zoned
tree cutting in rural areas in this fashion. The number of trees in rural areas greatly
outnumbers those in urban areas. It cannot be expected that we will apply for a permit to
cut down a single tree over 10cm in diameter. Unrealistic. This being said, old growth trees
should receive priority in all areas and should be covered by this bylaw.
51.At long last we need tree regulations for this City to help regulate irresponsible tree
cutting practices that result in negative impacts to neighbors and neighborhoods. The
Tree Bylaw can also hopefully help regulate how we can manage trees as a valued resource
in our community since they are an important asset to the community and they provide
citizens with alot of benefits. The Bylaw needs to be flexibile with consideration for
routine maintenance requirements on larger treed lots, working farms, and allow property
owners to manage trees in their yards as long as tree cutting doesn't negatively impact
neighbors or result in larger costs to the City and tax payers.
52.The bylaw is too broad. This will contribute to higher housing costs. The existing tree
bylaw sufficient enough.
53.i should have the right to cut dead or bothersome trees on my acerage, i can see this in the
city for subdivions and rual areas.the developers are the ones who are clearcutting the
land out thornhill whonnock way. what they have done is b.s. leave the homeonwers
allone
54.This is not clear at all and creates an unfair burden to current home owner. I have cedar
hedges in my front yard that are at least 10cm in diameter, and so to the letter of this new
bylaw, would fall under these guidelines. I think that this original bylaw update was
correct in the spirit of preventing developers from clear cutting a property needlessly, and
was no the result of home owners actions. This clause of the bylaw is also out of step with
similar by laws in other jurisdictions and it too broad (most jurisdictions make mention of
protected trees and not all trees). This WILL have the adverse affect that homeowners will
not want to plant trees on their property sue to the future restrictions and Maple Ridge
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
will be LESS green not more green for it. I for one would refrain from planting additional
trees in the future if this bylaw passes as is. In addition, rural properties can be heavily
treed and this makes it difficult to do things such as gardening/agriculture (which is
extremely beneficial to our community) and that garden plot becomes excessively
expensive with the financial cost of permits. Many rural property owners also use trees as
a source of fuel to heat their homes, and again, this creates an excessive financial burden
on them.
55. If I have trees on my lot that have simply taken over or become too large for my lot, I don't
need this hassle or second opinion. This by-law will prevent folks from being proactive
and let the trees become a problem before anything is done about them.
WOT!
56. the new proposal says you cannot top a tree, while I have hedging trees that I will in no
way allow to grow to whatever height they wish, this just cannot be forced on residents. I
need to top these trees annually and I am not going to pay a permit to top them. I also do
not like the idea that I have to pay for a surveyor to come assess a tree if it is hazardous. If
it is next to falling on my house, blocking my driveway etc, then I am going to chop it down.
I also believe that if I am the one purchasing a tree for planting, that it is my right to cut
that tree down at some point. It is my tree after all, it isn't the city's tree, they did not pay
for it.
I do like that Maple Ridge is wanting to save trees, but I think that this new set up is way
over the top with fees and ridiculous in such that it is too broad a scope.
I did have a situation some 20 years ago about a VERY old VERY large maple in my yard
that was going to fall on my house that I asked the city about, and nobody came to look and
assess, and my husband had a faller come in to take care of it. If we had waited, it would
have damaged a brand new house.
57. The trees on my property our my concern not somebody who lives in a subdivision with
no trees on there lot. I love my trees but I will have to take some down soon ,getting
dangerous. And who's going to police this new law?
58. My house is surrounded by big cedars. Some widow makers and one dead tree. I won't pay
to have expensive professional surveys done. If they fall on my house or me I will be
looking to sue somebody for making the removal of these trees too complicated and
expensive for someone on a fixed income.
59. it is totally unreasonable and bureaucratic and costly to the people of Maple Ridge
60. I live in rural Whonnock and i might as well live on the moon regarding the services we
recieve for our tax dollars. This is obviously another tax grab. Why do we bother to
purchase land when we are not allowed to improve/enhance it without giving MR money
to do so. My home is heated by wood and now you want money for me to heat my home?
61. Yes, i believe we need to ensure that we maintain and grow our urban forest.
62. Proposed bylaw is too rigorous.
63. This bylaw does NOT encourage responsible tree management, in fact it promotes a lack of
tree management. It may be effective for large property management/development and
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
strata teams but not general citizens that own single family properties.
This bylaw will create unnecessary and unreasonable hardship for many homeowners in
Maple Ridge in two ways:
1) for the landowner that owns the tree(s) a high cost of obtaining tree professional
assessments AND cutting services as well as obtaining a permit;
2) for the landowner that must bear costs in the event that a neighbour that owns the
tree(s) is unwilling or unable to effectively manage and/or pay for repairs from tree(s)
arising from physical damage from direct hits to structures and/or people or from indirect
impacts to drainage systems.
My property is a small city lot and shares lot lines with 2 other property owners that have
allowed trees within their lots to become overgrown, some of which have been topped
over 20 years ago. Prevailing winds direct branches up to 12 feet in length to sail into my
yard, not to mention the constant cleaning our gutters and decks require to remove build-
up of needles, twigs and cones. Four years ago I spoke to them about the problems but
they did not do anything and I had to bear the $800 cost of hiring professionals to trim
back the parts of the neighbors trees that were encroaching upon my yard and posing a
hazard. Again, two years ago I mentioned to the new owner that the trees are continuing
to rot and need attention; this resulted in their hiring services to cut only one danger tree;
others remain.
I am a landowner that strives for effective tree management, taking into consideration
privacy issues, tree health, ecosystem health, future cost avoidance and hazard issues. I
buy and maintain the proper tools to do so. Where I live there are an overabundance of
trees that grow very tall, very quickly; these attract crows and jays which hunt and eat the
eggs and young of other smaller birds, destroying their habitat.
64.We have approximately 8 acres of which 80% is heavily treed. We have owned this
property for over 30 years. We have used this wood lot responsibly, removing falls and
dangerous trees on a ongoing basis utilizing the wood for our home heating. We recently
had to take down 8 trees that had grown to the point where they were dangerous to our
house, the neighbours house and power lines. Some of these trees we had actually planted.
Having to obtain a permit for any of the above activities is just more bureaucracy that in
our case is not warranted or needed.
Keep the rural areas under the present tree bylaw requirements.
Doug & Peggy Roberts
65.I am unsure if a permit should be req'd for private property, unless trees are being cut
before a development application. If a development application in progress I strongly
agree a tree cutting permit should be required.
66.I don't see any need to change the part about private rural lands - those of us who actually
live on acreage do not cut trees down willy nilly - we like our trees!!
67.Having to get a permit to remove trees off my property seems to be a money grab.
68.question: why is a permit needed for a dying tree- eg; sapsucker and pine beetle damage?
Why are deserted properties not responsible for clearing off trees that cause neighbours
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
yards to be littered with sap, leaves and if ever falling -hitting wires and structures? why is
a permit needed for trees that damage driveways and too close to houses.? Why are very
old trees; or diseased, or no longer productive require a license? Why cannot a
homeowner remove a tree they have paid for and planted., but requires removal? ;for
reasonable reasons.
This is from someone who raises trees from seeds and rooting hormones, and shared
many a plant and trees over the years. This to me is a money grab and an insult to my
intelligence to make a decision about trees and the uses, needs and care.
69. I disagree with extended the law to cover all trees that are on private property that has
already been developed, if this property is outside the currently defined restricted areas.
70. Ridiculous in rural areas. I do not agree with clear cutting lots, but I should be able to
remove a tree or two without hiring an arborist or paying overinflated fees. How does this
relate to fire protection? I believe most of us moved out here to enjoy our forested areas,
so we are not likely to clear cut. What about tree removal for firewood? Many of my
neighbors cut and replant to maintain our treed properties. Tax grab
71. A cash grab for homeowners who want to cut down their own trees.
72. 20 cm dbh would be acceptable
73. 10cm is very small; its going to include a lot of trees and create a ton of work. It will cause
you to need to make a lot of decisions that will make your life difficult such as “when is a
large Rhodo a tree, not just a large shrub”
74. I feel like the 10cm diameter is too small – I think most of the lower mainland
municipalities go with 20cm or even larger. You’ll be creating a ton of work if you go with
10cm. Actually, 10cm might be a good threshold for streamside or steep slope trees and 20
or larger for other trees.
75. As you aware that the City of Vancouver tree permit size is 8.0”/20cm. I have seen many
newly established trees lost that fall short of this requirement. Albeit I feel 4.0”/10cm is a
tad small; as this size represents a recently established planting, 6.0”/15cm would address
the protection of a tree that is well established.
76. Agree with the expanded scope, question the size, 20cm is more manageable and
reasonable.__I actually feel that in a semi rural situation like Maple Ridge 30cm would be a
more appropriate size for the bylaw. The majority of the trees in Maple Ridge are native
species that grow quickly. We don't need to worry too much about the smaller trees, it is
the larger more significant trees we need to protect.
77. We have lived east of 248th street on our treed 8 acre property for over 40 years and have
always managed our own trees. We strongly object to all the added bureaucracy and costs
that this bylaw will create and are also strongly opposed to the invasion of privacy by
public employees able to come on to our property at their whim to see if we may have cut
down an alder tree. Does a property owner have any rights?
We think this by law will create a huge cost to the residents and the future town costs also
downloaded on to the residents. More cost even less in future return for our already high
taxes. Do we really need something like this? When I look north I see trillions of trees. A
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
strong NO to this bylaw.
78.My thought is that a 4” diameter tree is very small and you will have a lot of work to do to
administrate that many trees. Surrey has a 12” tree and that is more than enough work.
Not an issue is you are going to hire the right amount of staff to look after your bylaw. My
experience is that seldom happens. Staffing levels are the last thing thought of when
implementing a tree bylaw.
Are the removal of trees a real issue requiring this bylaw or is it more perceived due to
several complaints but nothing really damaging happening? The removal of trees for
development will happen with or without a tree bylaw. Trees could be protected during
the design/planning phase. Repl. trees as well. A bylaw isn’t needed for that. If there are
wholesale tree removals done outside of the Planning/building phases then there is an
issue.
79.By adding properties under 1 ac it becomes and excessive requirement when maintaining
property due to snag trees etc.
80.10cm though seems quite small, the diameter could be bigger, before you have to get a
permit.
81.Should not need a permit to cut trees on rural property. We pay enough taxes. We are not
supplying our property as a park for Maple Ridge. We should get a reduction in taxes for
having so many trees in rural MapleRidge.
82.lands in agricultural land reserves have to be exempted
83.Do agree that we need Tree Cutting Permits, don't know if trees over 10 cm in diameter
should be the cut-off
84.The old bylaw is sufficient
85.We need to have right to manage trees on property we own. The city does not own our
property.
86.I think the proposed approach is too smothering on the homeowner/landowner. If you had
put a number in there i.e. 3 or more trees for a residential property or 10 or more trees for
properties being developed, I would probably agree more with you. There is no room for
them to do things on their own property without being monitored/regulated by the city
which is wrong in my opinion. Another thought would be to increase the diameter size or
define the type of tree......i.e. nursery purchased trees used for landscaping are exempt. Old
growth (come up with a definition) should be monitored.
87.I favour the proposed approach because it considers the future of Maple Ridge and the
bigger picture.
88.Is this a problem? How do you enforce? What about cutting for firewood?
89.I disagree as the proposed Bylaw # 7133-2015 does not allow for homeowners to cut trees
on their property for personal use for firewood or other reasons.
90.Every property is different. Every situation is different.
91.LIving in a rural area, we find it necessary to control diseased and dangerous trees that
threaten power lines, and buildings. Not all private properties are being developed but
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
would be impacted.
92.they are my trees and they are my money and you did not pay the taxs on them just like
you don't want me in your bank acount. leave my tres alone they are my trees
93.I cannot agree with a policy that increases the bureaucratic influence over private
property - specially rural properties
94.I believe that this suggested bylaw infringes on basic rights of ownership of land. I do
believe most people have common sense and if the city is looking to increase awareness
and protection of trees it would best to provide education on the subject rather than heavy
handed enforcement. If there are certain areas in that the city is concerned with, such as
clear cutting large areas, then the city should be more specific in what the bylaw is really
intending to accomplish rather than blanket a restrictive over all it's citizens.
95.I have over 4 acres of trees - I enjoy my trees but sometimes due to growth or decay they
need to be cut for various and sundry reasons. To require a permit to a fell a few trees in
rural areas or large lots with numerous trees is totally inappropriate.
96.Make this a strong bylaw. I want to protect the trees.
97.Should cover more.
98.Does not go far enuf.
99.Yes.
100. I think residential property should be excluded unless the tree is determined to be a
hazard.
101. Rural land and especially rural land that is NOT approved for development (NO city
water/sewer) should NOT be included in the new bylaw. It should be exempted. Why?
Because many rural land owners have hobby farms, specialty growing ops. (NOT pot) as
for example X-mas tree farms, hazel- nut farms, monkey tree farms (no monkey business!),
etc. etc. Also, there are many sheep farms, horse lovers with many animals...but they are all
NOT a farm as per your specific identification. I belong to this group and steadily thin my
"forest" from "pest trees". These are trees that overtake your property in no time. They
are called "pioneer species" and include alder, maple and birch.
Rural land that cannot be subdivided because of size restriction and min. size
requirements are a different breed than properties that have high density development
potential...using your OCP. Monopoly housing projects like in the Albion area are an eye
sore and should never be allowed. But that's an other story.
Rural land owners look for nice treed parcels that give peace, tranquility and a sense of
belonging. We love trees, but also need to maintain and cut to suit our life style...and that's
exactly why we would never nuke our "Shangri-La". There may be the odd "outlaw" among
us that does something stupid, but then again, who is perfect?
102. I am the owner of a rural lot with a house (9 acres) that was purchased in the last year.
The land was bought with the intent of building our dream home at a later date, as well as
a shop for my hobbies. Your new bylaw will make this far too expensive. I would not have
purchased in Maple Ridge had I known this draconian bylaw for land use was under
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
consideration.
I fully support the measures intended to regulate new development within the city.
However, if a regular property owner wants to cut down a tree, it would cost that person
over $700.
I understand the need for conservation, but I do see Maple Ridge being clear cut under the
current bylaw. I have no desire to clear cut my property, but would require the removal of
approximately 50 trees on my fully wooded acreage to build my dream house.
I personally will not vote for any member of council or mayor in favor of this bylaw in the
next election.
103. Thanks for finally getting a bylaw. Make sure it's effective!
104. Make it forceful!
105. Most people don't cut trees unless there's a reason, why does it always have to be more
money.
106. Make this bylaw really beneficial for our environment=protect the trees!
107. I definitely agree with is as I love the trees and their beauty. Please make sure this bylaw
protects them all.
108. Make it a forceful bylaw.
109. Please ensure this is a strong bylaw.
110. Get on with it!
111. But needs clarification.
112. This is good to see.
113. Get on with it.
114. This new bylaw should be forceful + powerful enough to put a stop to the crazy amounts of
tree cutting in Maple Ridge.
115. Wonderful improvements!
116. I'm glad to see action on this!
117. I agree, but it could be even better!
118. This is good to see!
119. This bylaw needs clarification.
120. What has taken so long to get to the point of actually having a bylaw? Get on with it! We
need to save the trees!!!
121. Make the tree bylaw very strong.
122. No covenants please! Give me a vote on this bylaw! A tree is property owned by the
property owner upon purchase of the property unless mentioned in the land title upon
purchase of the property. Trees come under the dept. of mines & forests which issues you
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
timber rights & mining rights for your land. Does the city wish to purchase my trees & tree
rights to my property.
123. I do not agree with private property being included where it is not being developed or for
having new buildings constructed.
124. This should be retained. You should keep it the way it is.
125. I don't like it at all.
126. This is more an urban issue. We bought acreage for the trees. We should be able to plant
and or cut down what ever we want.
127. Long overdue! Thank you.
128. It's time to get a move on! People have waited years for a good bylaw!
129. Urban and Rural two different issues. As Rural, we are the stewards of our own private
wilderness. Most of us live out rurally so that we don't see our neighbors. We value our
trees!!
130. Need to recognize weed trees such as alder, aspen, cottonwood, poplar type trees have a
short life, limbs break off without warning and die after a short life time compared to
evergreens. They invariably become hazard trees and need to be removed before they
cause damage.
131. The 10cm diameter will encourage clearing of trees before they reach the 10cm diameter.
Propose increase diameter to 30cm or more.
132. It should apply to big development that will greatly profit but not property owners in rural
areas.
133. Could be a lot better
134. Rural areas: landowners should have the right to manage their trees on their own
property.
135. There was no problem clear cutting Silver Valley - Rock Ridge - Grant Hill. Why now???
136. Could be even tougher!
137. Yes, but needs to be even better
138. This is good!
139. good start - needs improvement
140. It's about time!
141. It could be more specific.
142. Needs to be even stronger!
143. About time
144. should be more
145. This bylaw is cripiling to my freedom. Almost everything I do is an offence. I can't believe
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
tax payers would let a few people take away all their rights to do simple maintenance. Let
"The City" carry on with their way of business (maintenance of rite of ways & municipal
properties exempt of rediculous restrictions) imposed with cripiling peneltys. Extorsion
bullying & terrorism. Are you sure it is not the demand for new housing.
146. Should only apply to urban and development properties.
147. The historical approach is extremely limited and doesn't prevent owners/developers from
clear-cutting their properties outside the urban area. It also doesn't prevent anyone from
cutting down trees if they're not on a subdividable lot under the existing zone, whereas
most lots would need to be rezoned to be subdivided, so it's ineffective.
148. It is our property. We purchased our property complete with all the trees - as is, where is.
We should not need a permit to cut our trees. With this "proposed approach" we would
never have purchased property in Maple Ridge.
149. Needs to be clearer & stronger.
150. Make it less confusing.
151. It's about time!!
152. This needs to be a good sturdy bylaw that protects all of our trees!
153. Bylaw needs to be stronger on no cutting of trees. Whey so many news paper ads? To get
people mad with the idea that they may have to stop harming the envirnment? We/they
have had lots of opportunity to speak up and the previous survey was in favour of saving
the trees. Why is the city trying to upset people that have had decades of doing what they
want with no bylaw/consequences. I have never seen so many newspaper ads. Sounds
like envirnmental planner wants disagreements. Why? So he can suggest to weaken the
bylaw.
154. Please see my comments on pages: #7, #10 & #11. Thank you.
155. Actually make it a tough bylaw though!
156. Yes!
157. It's nice to see improvements such as fixing our bylaw.
158. Yes!
159. Get on with saving the trees. The city envirnmental people have written this bylaw in a
confusing & manipulative way. What are their motives - to manipulate & control? Why do
we need to still be "talking about trees". The envirnmental planner talks to much and has
done nothing to save the trees. What's his agenda for this one? Everyone is replacable".
We are years past talking, lets just save all trees.
160. The previous Tree Management Bylaw did not apply to rural lands, or to urban parcels less
than 1 acre in size.
The proposed Bylaw should NOT require a Tree Cutting Permit for trees over 10cm in
diameter on all private lands and rural areas EXCEPT properties where-by development
activity is being proposed.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
161. it is important to retain the 'old growth' trees in our community. Development projects
should try to retain as much as possible of the existing forested areas, instead of
clearcutting the area for their subdivisions.
162. Rural areas should not e treated the same as urban areas
163. rural areas need to be able to manage their properties and cut trees as necessary for
firewood, safety and property management ie. Alders grow like weeds !
164. Glad to see this!
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Comments For Section Two:
# Response
1.Why not have tree protection installed for every tree to be retained - on site and offsite? It
appears that the wording would allow for someone to not barricade an area if it was more
than 5m away from a excavation, demolition, construction or engineering works. The issue
is that an excavator can drive anywhere on a property and end up using many areas for
construction laydown - or to allow access into a site.
2.With regards to Question 2.1 care must be exercised.
A property boundary tree can be a real point of conflict. While one neighbor may consider a
property tree as "beautiful" or significant the other neighbor may consider it a source of
excess shade, needle drop or simply and overgrown planted stock which they would like to
replace. There needs to be accommodation of both concerns, and some respect for a
property owner to modify their landscape and protect/enhance their property. Lot size and
reasonableness of tree removal must be considered.
3.The need to enforce & monitor proper tree protection zones on developing sites is critical.
The idea of providing builders "incentives" for retaining significant trees is intriguing, but
those incentives would likely need to be significant.
4.The City should provide tax property relief to property owners who are willing to protect
and even increase forested areas on their property. Private property, where treed areas
have been cut, could be used to create "forest banks", with the long term objective of
increasing tree cover. Developers would have to pay into the forest bank, when removing
treed areas. Diversity should be a goal as well, so that re-treed or re-forested areas do not
become monoculture. Large trees, rather than small pots should be required as well.
5.Replacement with 4 or 5 foot trees of small stature is not appropriate if the existing trees
are years old and provide a true buffer. NO BONUS DENSITY IN ORDER TO LEAVE OR
REPLACE TREES. NO! NO! NO! Replacement should not be an option if the existing trees
are healthy.
6.The new bylaw needs to be stronger. Trees should be an important part of Maple ridge
7.Neighbourhoods with well-established and wild-grown trees are far more appealing than
those whose land has been decimated to make way for development. There is respectful
ethic to working around existing trees - rather than clearing them for the sake of
convenience and cost efficiency - and our community would greatly benefit from an ethic
that respects the land and trees in this manner.
Regarding the incentives, I do agree, but would like to see that clause worded very strongly
so that it is far more than simple encouragement to protect existing trees. On the whole, I
see it as doing good in that the existence of established trees is seen as adding greater value
(economic, aesthetic, social, biological) to a neighbourhood.
8.Big trees fall down on houses and get in the way of developers. I think the practice of
clearing first and planting later where needed is better and more cost effective. We need to
produce cheaper housing not more expensive and the added cost of dealing with a tree
bylaw is not needed.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
9. Progressive and sustainable development should take into account, and protect as much as
possible, the existing environment, including trees, so anything that strengthens that
thinking is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I didn't move to Maple Ridge despite the
trees and the environment, it was one of the big pluses for me.
10. It seems Maple Ridge's larger concern is for development property. What about those of us
that live on our acreage and want to manage it ourselves? What's happening to property
rights? Where's the allowance for property owners that care about maintaining their
property and creating a nice place to live? This takes management of trees, removing some,
moving others, adding trees in different locations. Why do I need a permit from 'Big
Brother Maple Ridge' to care for my own place if I'm not clearcutting?
11. Did anyone check out what other places do? Specifically Sudden Valley, WA outside of
Bellingham...when my family wanted to build their home years ago, the requirement was
you had to map every tree on the lot, and position the house on each property in such a way
as to retain as many trees as possible. Was it a burden, yes, did it cost extra time and more
money, yes...but the Valley still looks like mountains, not housing developments. What
happened on the Mary Hill bypass or now what it looks like up David Street on Burke
Mountain in Poco shouldn't happen, you shouldn't have that open area seen from far away,
that clearcutting to develop and then put a few trees back, but the eyesore from far away
remains, it should have still seemed like a mountain from a far off view. You don't have to
demand the old growth trees all remain, but that the neighbourhoods should still look like
they did before. Figuratively speaking, lets keep the look of "maples" on the "ridge", even if
it's newer trees and not the originals.
12. Again, I believe this bylaw goes too far in helping a homeowner protect their property
values and those of their neighbours, including the lack of ability to remove some trees
because your property was "over planted" and your yard is not usable as is due to the
number of trees.
13. Question 1
Yes, but should be evaluated case by case. Common sense to be applied to hazardous trees
such as diseased trees.
Question 2
Incentives should be available to everyone, not just applied to develpment lands. The city
could assess which trees are are significant and they need to be retained. There should be
no bargaining.
14. Proviso there is a big difference with the size of lot involved!!!! On development areas yes .
15. With respect to your bylaw/policy provision that “Protection incentives may include
density bonus incentives and tree retention credits that can be earned to offset replacement
requirements or cash in lieu costs” please note that legislation already requires you to
provide some type of compensation should the protection of the tree reduce a developer’s
lot yield. That being said, reminding the developer that saving trees will not hamper their
lot yield potential and even enhance, is a great idea.
As for tree protection zones around trees, this should be coordinated with the building
inspections services department as well, not just during land development. The biggest
challenge I have found is the poor transfer f knowledge from developer to builder.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Developer’s hate having to retain a tree only to find out that an ignorant builder has
damaged it or removed it.
16.Again, flexibility is the key. Not all sites are the same. Some people do not like lots of trees
on small lots. In many instances a cash-in-lieu scenario will be preferred. That way, the city
can plant trees where they know they can be maintained and where they are needed. It is
not possible to police all development sites and be sure individual owners are not removing
replacement trees. I find it common to visit older projects of mine and find many
replacement trees are removed. Some municipalities in the past have forced the designer to
use large trees such as cedar and doug fir, which are inappropriate for small lots or tight
development sites.
17.2.1 is again encroaching especially if we are speaking of a poplar windbreak, cedar or a
laurel hedge, the wording is too broad. I do think there should be incentives for green space
and greenery as well as preservation of trees native to the development site.
18.I'm not sure that great tree specimens should be any more important if they're close to a
property line. I have not seen this in any other municipal tree protection bylaws. All trees
are important and healthy ones should be protected where possible. Perhaps if the trees are
close to a conservation or riparian area, they could be considered to have greater
importance.
19.As far as where there is a stream, or creek (not a ditch, or so-called water course), then it
makes sense to keep stability to banks, and keep mud from filtering into the stream or
creek. It should be our choice what we want between our home and our property line - a
fence, a hedge, flowers, or nothing. In a tight building envelope this too is absolutely
ridiculous. Tree roots can get into and play havoc with perimeter drainage lines. Tree debris
can deteriorate your roof prematurely causing roof replacement - horrendous, unnecessary
costs for new roofing and disposal of old roofing. This is not environmentally friendly. Too
many trees can disrupt air flow, and creating mildew and mold, and moss, which is not
healthy. Tree protection barriers around the critical root zone of all trees within 5 meters of
any excavation, demolition, construction, etc. is a very large area - ridiculous. Saving
significant trees (what is a significant tree?) in a development could take away from your
land yield, cause more unnecessary costs at an already inflated development cost. Once the
significant tree fails, what is the point - what is this significant tree?
20.2.1 - We cannot expect other property owners to be regulated to provide the trees for our
privacy & enjoyment along property lines. Plant some on your OWN property.
21.2.1 - Would the critical root zone come into play & restrict what I do in my residential yard
ex: if there is a tree 2 meters from the fence in my neighbours yard & I want to dig along the
fence line on my side to install a hedge or any other feature?? Also, if someone enjoys the
privacy afforded by trees along property lines they should plant some on their OWN
property. Don't expect (or try to enforce) someone else to keep the trees there for you.
2.2 - No extra "significant tree" designations as that will only cause an uproar because every
tree will then become "significant". Just stick with the minimum tree requirements to be
met.
22.Does this focus on land being developed or would it include someone cutting trees to allow
the sun in for a garden? 5 meters is a long way inside a city lot. Does this take into
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
consideration the type of trees? Some trees over 10 cm can be fairly scraggly and unhealthy
and may be better cut and replaced with more suitable trees. *Urban gardens (vegetable)
should be encouraged.
23. My agreement applies only to the properties stated above and does not apply to residential
property unless said trees are a hazard.
24. 2.1 Every site is unique, depending on the slop, soil conditions and tree species &
ecosystems so every site has to be inspected and access. I feel you can not judge every site
just be looking at a proposal on paper.
2.3 it will be pleasing to new home owners if some nice trees are left.
25. There should be protection for all native species in conservation areas including trees.
26. Consider additional protection requirements for unique tree specimens such as old growth
trees or protection of mature tree stands that are an important asset to a site, a
neighborhood, or to the City. Ensure adequate protection of municipal trees on City lands
that are zoned or designated as Park or for Development in the future. Figure out a way to
work with Crown lands and stakeholders that manage trees outside of municipal
boundaries to ensure adequate protection or management measures for Maple Ridge
citizens since these surrounding lands are important to the prosperity of our watersheds,
and they provide an important part of the natural landscape that citizens have come to
enjoy.
27. I think that some exceptions to the tree replacement requirement would beneficial
especially to homeowners, not developers, who are trying to increase their property values
of not only their homes, but their neighbours, possibly requiring approval from their
immediate neighbours.
28. I agree when these terms apply to new developement.
I have a small lot and and these small lots should be exempt.
29. You have laws in place to protect trees everywhere . You need your field Inspection to do
there jobs . If they flag a tree to stay they to flag off the area and make sure the contractor
does not get to close .
30. I live in a forest. You are applying rules that make no sense in my area. One size fits all
bylaws are ridiculous
31. Should be a lot tougher.
32. I believe that homeowners should be able to maintain their property without the
interference of MR council. And it should not cost us money to do so. You will probably see a
huge backlash against respect for MR should this proceed
33. Good plan
34. Two of my property lines are heavily encroached upon by neighbouring trees and root
zones; in fact, my actual house is within 5 meters of those overgrown trees and my house
foundation is likely reached by the roots of those trees that are not being adequately
managed! The two neighbors will be further discouraged to adequately manage their trees
by this proposed bylaw because of the financial hit.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
35.We agree that lands under development should have better tree protection measures.
36.I have mixed feelings about density bonus incentives, especially when a developer is
allowed to contavene the OCP or area plan for greater gain with little return to the DMR.
37.I believe we need much more green space with native trees, plants and flowers. What we do
need is a restriction on foreign trees, plants and wildlife that are destroying our natural
habits. This is of greater concern then having a permit to cut down a dying or dangerous
tree; and on top of that having to get a certified arborist to tell me yea or nay. Perhaps Maple
Ridge could be the first community to limit foreign plants. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
38.I should have the ability to remove trees in my own property. Otherwise, I would rent, not
own. I agree that my tree roots area should be protected if a lot is developed close to my
trees. Not sure about 5 meters, that seems excessive.
39.There's no point in having tree protection if people with enough money can buy their way
around the protection.
40.This is good stuff; our previous bylaw is weak in this area and it creates a lot of time
consuming problems.
41.I don’t understand the property line protection… is it intended to protect trees on
properties adjacent to development? If so, then I think it’s a great idea, but there needs to be
a plan in place for scenarios where a proposed development WILL impact a property line
tree. I.e. will your planning or building department support setback variances, or making
developers use alternate building/construction measures? We don’t have much support
from other departments in Coquitlam for these scenarios – make sure you have their buy-in
before you create a bylaw that forces them to react.
42.There may be ambiguity with the definition of a significant tree.
43.5m may be more than required. This distance is typically associated with trees 90cm or
larger which would be rare
44.This approach must be combined with equal amounts of education and enforcement for the
bylaw. Contractors need to understand clearly the reasons for root protection, and the
hazards to trees and people if they do not follow the setbacks. At the same time, someone
involved with a property or development project should be set as responsible for insuring
that tree root zones are respected. But most importantly, without some enforcement these
rules will be quickly ignored.
45.Those are all good measures in my opinion. But what about home owners? How do you
prevent trees being removed pre-development? Once a bylaw is enacted there are forces in
the world that will work hard to get around the bylaw. What about multi-stemmed trees?
What about large shrubs that are over 4” diameter? What defines a species of a tree vs a
shrub? Is a 50 year old rhododendron a tree, for example?
46.Need to have some flexibility for smaller urban lots and agricultural lands but generally
agree with proposed measures
47.2.1 is a bit vague, but if we are talking a large development and these trees provide an
important buffer then yes.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
48. This approach gives people the opportunity to do the right thing by designing the right plan
as well as how to do it with clear plan language. It reinforces the value of the trees.
49. Additional protection of trees within 5 meters of the property lines makes site planning
more difficult resulting in increased costs and decreased density. We need to balance this
with other things like affordability. Incentives don't generally work as here is nowhere else
to physically put the increased density so there really is no incentive-- only penalty.
50. For removal of trees as per question 2.1 the 5 meters may not be reasonable in all cases.
51. This blanket Bylaw is intended for ALL properties, yet it should be specific for Properties
Undergoing Development. Why not make it specific for Properties Undergoing
Development ONLY. Being a rural property, precludes development potential unless you
have City Water and Sewer. Otherwise there are property size restrictions, SO make the
Bylaw specific for what it intends to manage. Then I would support it.
52. What is the difference between an existing conservation area and a proposed conservation
area? Who makes that decision and who is held accountable for that decision?
If the city dictates trees must remain in an area within 5 meters of a property boundary, will
the city be responsible for any damages caused to a neighbouring property by trees falling
or loosing/self shedding branches? What if insurance companies go after the city for
damages?
53. This will require more red tape for all developers but it is the little developer of a lot or two
who will bear the biggest brunt of this type of bylaw.
54. Good thinking!
55. Yes.
56. Incentives??? are you kidding me! Be careful what you are doing. Incentives work as long as
there is not a culture of "entitlement". You drive the bus, you make the law, you decide what
the community wants. End of story.
The "significant tree" are what? How do you define a significant tree? As a developer you
like little or no trees for many good and bad reasons. I see this as diving into a shallow pool
with many lawyers making money. If the significant trees are a grove of big, mature ( 140
years + trees (NOT alders, maples, birches) then be aware of the wind damage that may
(will) follow. This is not an easy decision and few people will have the experience to do it
right. Who is liable in case my dog gets killed be a falling branch of the significant tree that
you insisted on protecting? You need set backs, prevailing wind info., soil info, root info,
species specific natural strengths and weaknesses and a whole lot more.
NOT and easy task. Not a black or white decision. I sounds all very easy, but is not. An
arborist will not do. You need an EXPERIENCED R.P.F. ..and they do not come cheap and
they will also make mistakes. I know your good intentions here, but you better think this
out, and all the way before the pool turns red.
57. its interesting that these rules do not apply to trees on city lands...
58. Like the ideas here!
59. Trees should be part of Maple ridge
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
60.I am very supportive of this.
61.Good ideas!
62.Use protection barriers always!
63.Great ideas!
64.I believe all trees should have protective barriers around them during developments!
65.Great ideas!
66.Yes! Finally! Protect the trees!
67.Undeveloped forested land: Options
1) Stumps & dead trees can be harvested for fire wood.
2) Stumps should be allowed to rot - to protect bumble bees, river voles frogs etc.
68.This bylaw will result in overgrown, dangerous acreage properties.
69.The Bylaw does not deal adequately with the fact that small trees get big, quickly, or that big
trees get old & die, or that big trees take up a lot of space, shade a lot of sun and are very
difficult to manage.
70.Urban - yes Rural - no
71.New developments like the 240th Corridor are a disgrace! The developer should never had
be allow to just clear cut the area. The houses are so close together you can't even grow a
tree between the houses.
72.Need to recognize different types of trees - long living desirable trees vs - short lived hazard
trees 'weed'. Do not replant 'weed' species.
73.Types of trees and size should be considered for retention. Large trees along a boundary
line could cause problems if no other "protection" trees are left. More wind exposure can
cause them to toppel.
74.Question 2.1- If you were to leave 5 meters of tall trees with the boundary between our
properties, it would just be subject to blow downs in a wind storm. In our circumstances if
we left 5 meters they would blow down because some of our neighbors have taken all their
trees out already.
75.Yes we need tree protection Barriers!
76.Yes!
77.good requirements!
78.protection barriers are good
79.Yes!!!
80.Could be more.
81.If trees are retained for whatever reason it should be practical & benificial to everyone.
Barriers are a small part of protecting any tree.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
82. Use cert. arborist min 5yrs experience
This is more important on developers lands! or permit building application
83. Trees along property lines can be contentious between neighbours, so maintaining them
would be beneficial, unless both parties agree to the removal, in which case an agreement
should be documented. If a tree is to be retained, it definitely makes sense to have the
protection barriers up to prevent damage during construction activities.
84. 2.1 We might want a fence, hedge or flowers - it should be left up to the individual.
Residential lots side yards aren't even 5m's, so how do you justify 5m setback?
2.2 Saving significant trees in development lands takes away from land yield & drives up
cost of properties.
2.3 Steep slopes by a stream or creek (not a ditch) need to be protected. There are other
ways of doing it with ground cover, shrubbery, or rocks - not only with trees.
85. I'm all for saving specimen trees. I have bought a new home and have an environmental
protection to protect shrubs. The amount of work and money just to prove that these
shrubs should be removed is ridiculous.
86. Great idea.
87. This is a must!
88. It's important to be sure to not damage the roots while developing as trees need their roots
to live! Glad to be seeing this!
89. Good ideas!
90. Tree protection requirements for development activity and larger scale tree cutting activity
across the municipality is where City of Maple Ridge problem is acknowledged and
identified. This is where City protection measures need be applied. The proposed Bylaw
should have provisions for the protection of trees that are to be retained on properties
undergoing development.
The proposed Bylaw protection language for trees that are located in conservation areas, or
along property boundaries should offer option considerations for current ownership and
mandatory directives of recent ownership.
City of Maple Ridge should be compelled to remove hazardous trees and prune problem
trees forthwith, that are on City soil.
91. absolutely!
92. If trees are be retained they should be protected
93. 2.1 I agree that neighbouring trees should be protected from harm if the neighbour wants
to keep them.
2.2 I'm concerned about your definition of significant. Just because a tree is large doesn't
make it significant. We had a beautiful and significant Silver Maple in Memorial Square -
why did you cut that down?
94. you are not considering the impact tree roots can have on rural septic fields
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
95.Great job!
96.Not enough
97.Tree protection barriers are a must!
Comments For Section Three
# Response
1.Care will have to be exercised as to who is qualified to provide "management"
recommendations with respect to tree management on development sites. If we are talking
about tree stands, then there is an ecological function of the stand irrespective of the stems.
I have been disturbed by the apparent willingness of arborists to "right off" trees (in fact
small stands of trees) on the basis of a hazard assessment which was no more than giving
the owner what they wanted to hear. I have first hand knowledge of that type of activity. I
would strongly recommend that tree management include other professionals including
silviculturalist, professional biologist, urban foresters and arbourists functioning in some
sort of collarborative approach.
2.I wouldn't restrict it to "large scale" only. It's not clear what is meant by large scale in the
explanation above. If compensation is an option, the City should identify "forest bank"
opportunities on both private and public land. These new forest banks should be protected
by conservation covenant.
3.As long as the fall back position is not cut down grown trees and replace them with 4 foot
trees that will not provide the same barrier as would the existing trees.
4.As well as a tree management plan, the possible change in water runoff should also be
looked at by a professional hydrologist.
For question 3.1 I agree that a Tree Management plan should be put in place as commercial
developments or large scale buildings will have a much greater impact on the surrounding
neighbourhood.
In Q 3.2, large scale clearing for non-development, i.e. for farm land use should not be place
under the same restrictions. If in a rural setting, one wishes to clear the land for farm use or
landscaping, then the owner should have the right to do so.
5.All of these proposals seem to be aimed at building a larger, even more cumbersome
bureaucracy. I think this is a response to a few very squeaky wheels that do not represent
the majority of citizens.
6.Bravo for bringing in the requirement of qualified tree experts who "comprehensively
consider" how to reduce impacts to adjacent properties. I would go further and require the
consultation of a biologist who looks at the impact on ecosystems as a whole, to protect not
only human interests, but those of the ecosystem and all the life that depends on it.
What many people value most about living in Maple Ridge is the closeness to nature - this
needs to be protected and preserved.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
7. Living on a non development site, I bought it to enjoy it. I would like to have the ability to
manage my own property, whether that's clearing it totally to put in pasture and graze
animals, or open it up so my grandkids can safely ride a mini-bike on it or what have you. I
understand the need for some city control but having to pay for a permit to take a tree down
on my own place?? C'mon....
8. What about tree protection and/or replacement requirements for developers that don’t
have any environmental protection areas such as watercourses or steep slopes?
9. Qualified tree experts must prepare comprehensive strategies on site to reduce impacts to
adjacent properties including retention, protection, and compensation.
10. What do you call a major landscaping project? What I am doing presently on my 1/3 acre
property? An arborist for so many situations? We had difficulty finding one when a tree of
ours was damaged due to neighbour's property clearing. Clarity as to size of property is a
must.
11. I am not sure what is mean by a “tree management plan”, but I think that the suite of tools
already available should be enough to manage new developments and large scale building
applications.
For example, as long as you have communication between all city departments and that
they are all aware of the City’s goals on its tree management program, it should suffice. For
example, planning would make sure that developers are following the bylaw from time of
application and that tree plans are being report to Council, engineering would make sure
that lot grading plan and the installation of servicing do not conflict with the approved tree
retention and planting plans, buildings will make sure that trees retained and planted as
part of development would also be protected during building activities on the land and
bylaw enforcement would ensure the longevity of the efforts made to protect trees on an
ongoing basis.
As a side note, I believe that more emphasis should be placed on retaining trees (conifers)
than replanting, which are almost always deciduous trees. In my opinion, one large healthy
tree retained is better than 5 new trees planted on a lot. It has a bigger impact.
12. this seems to have a good idea as a starting point, but then to add a very weighty and
unnecessary lay of cost.
13. I agree for large scale development, not for single family on regular size lots.
14. In development and large scale building applications - you take down the old 2nd growth
trees that are getting old, unsafe, rotting in the centre. People normally take down these old
trees and plant new healthier trees and bushes with the landscaping creating less of a
hazard for failing trees and damaging buildings which can be an astronomical cost to the
owner/s and insurance company. I am really surprised that insurance companies don't have
a bylaw where trees have to be a certain distance away from your home/building.
Regarding large scale clearing applications or tree removal - it the property owners land -
they bought the property, they pay the taxes, they should be able to do with the property
what they want as long as zoning permits, not dictating to them whether they have to leave
a tree or not, maybe they would like their land all in grass - which also is very appealing.
Maybe they want to plant a nice, big vegetable garden to cut down on the high costs of
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
everything.
15.This only adds to the cost of development, therefore it continues to increase housing costs.
It sounds harsh, as I do love trees, but they can be replanted in the best location after
development.
16.I believe if we want trees protected then as a community we should all put actions before
fees & regulations. Keep this very simple, EVERY LAND OWNER in EVERY AREA of our
community must maintain 15% of their property in trees (based on their drip line). Also
including undergrowth for insects/birds/animals would benefit the ecosystem. All property
owners, rural or urban, should maintain a percentage of treed space so the burden of giving
up part of your land, a bit of a view & protecting an aquifer falls on everyone in the
community. Please do not make the current tree owners responsible for supplying privacy
& pretty scenery for those who have chosen not to plant trees. Incentives like property tax
discounts based on amount of treed area should get people planting.
17.Will the City have their own Qualified Tree Expert to verify the Tree Management Plans
submitted by developers?
Large scale clearing should always be done in stages to minimize impact (flooding/slides)
and impact to Aquifers should always be in forefront.
18.Yes, Kanaka Creek Regional Park has a long linear boundary with tree management issues
because neighbours have cleared right up to the boundary and expect trees on park
property to be managed for views and hazards to private property without any thought of
impacts to the park.
19.(3.2) I think care must be taken not to over monitor as it would require huge resources on
land being landscaped. However management for new development (3.1) & large scale
building applications as well as fill and large scale clearing should be managed to protect
adjacent properties and reduce impact on neighbours and water courses.
20.3.2 the large scale 100 + acres development in Whispering Falls area, should fall under the
new proposal. It is going to take years if not decards before it is built up. Economic down
turn could slow, while costs go up for Municipality services as well, this example of urban
sprawl does not make sense anymore.
There is still in fill to do in the last development adjacent, plus there is less people who can
afford these homes.
The last council and Mayor have stalled adopting the new tree bylaws so that developers
can have freedom in destroying what god created. This is why I am hopeful for a positive
change.
21.The City needs to regulate and manage for large scale clearing of trees in rural areas as well
as cumulative impacts associated with cutting of trees in urban areas so it doesn't continue
to alter the landscape of the City without consideration for future generations and
neighboring properties.
22.Again, as stated, with new development and large scale building applications, YES but tread
carefully with residential properties not being developed.
23.Don't you have laws. Doesn't your engineering department have to approve all new
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
construction projects? Are they not doing there jobs either.
24.I bet the arborists love this. They stand too make a fortune and the homeowner has no
option but to pay.
25.Does not go far enough.
26.This is totally different from Residential issues. Leave us homeowners alone
27.Will the City provide staff resources to help out home owners rather than making each
home owner go through private consultants every time?
28.Define "large scale"
29.especially if non-development green space is native
30.I believe it depends on your definition of large scale. It should not apply to areas less than1
acre in size.
31.All good ideas
32.In Coquitlam, we have the ability to ask for a ‘clearing risk management plan’ for those
developments that may impact neighbouring properties through large scale clearing. I think
it puts the City at a liability if we DON’T ask for these types of mitigation plans.
33.All construction and non-development projects should include requirements for specific
professionals that would be the educators for landowners on the responsibilities for tree
protection. At a minimum, certified arborists should be a requirement for any landowner.
For development construction sites, even small ones, both an arborist and a landscape
architect should be involved to help manage the project.
Clear educational materials that outline the ‘why’ of these bylaw changes should be made
available to help landowners understand why the District is making these changes,
including the benefits and consequences of tree protection.
34.What are the enforcement requirements and do you have the resources to apply them?
How are you going to deal with developers/builders/homeowners ignoring the bylaw?
What is the fine structure and who will enforce the fines? Are you willing to impose fines on
a pensioner? A major developer? Are there different rules for homeowners vs developers?
35.Long overdue and will help professional foresters and arborists to do their jobs more
effectively.
36.3.2 is vague too.....I think the term large needs to be clarified....i.e. 20 or more trees, 50 or
more trees, 100 or more. I would like to see some flexibility for non-development sites if it
is being used for personal use to keep costs down....if it is for future development then
maybe that has to be look at more closely.
37.This is the only way for the city to be able to manage development responsibly and the only
way for staff to enforce anything.
38.Management should not equal no touch areas or wholesale preservation. Replanting is the
best approach.
39.This Bylaw is NOT specific for the areas described above. The way it is written is TOO
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
BROAD and all encompassing. While the concept may be reasonable, the scope of the
proposed Bylaw is not.
40.If the wording had stayed with large scale clearing I would have agreed but it says "tree
removal" therefore I strongly disagree. The intent of the bylaw is to discourage large scale
clearing. When you put in "tree removal" that is opening up every property owner to huge
costs to revamp their yard or cut down a few trees.
41.Do more.
42.Like the idea!
43.Yes.
44.Who Watches?
45.You need an experience Registered Professional Forester with a very good silvicultural and
LOCAL background. NO novice that just fell off the school bench. Consult with Paul Lawson,
Director of the UBC Research Forest in your back yard. Paul has a very good understanding
of forestry and may assist you finding the right person. His phone # is; 604 463 8148.
If you do not hire an RPF, get a good one on a contract basis. It's like your lawyers, you are
good, we keep you , if not you are gone.
Just my comments, but maybe too radical for you.
46.Maybe this will stop the spread of all the ugly match-box houses already built in town.
47.Save our trees!
48.Make it tougher.
49.I agree very strongly with this.
50.Yes!
51.Is the City going to provide any additional staff resources or expertise to help homeowners
out with basic tree issues including safety concerns?
52.Safety issues trees should be removed at all times.
53.Private Residential propertys in rural areas where wood is used to heat with should be
alowed to supplement those senior income with wood.
54.Management in Urban Areas OK BUT no Restrictions or Permits for Rural Areas.
55.The size of "large scale clearing" is not defined. 1/2 acre? 3 acres? 5 acres?
56.Big developers shouldn't be allowed to build subdivisions where the lots are so small with
no room for trees in the yards. For example 240th street where the houses are so big and
tightly packed there is no room for trees.
57.Keep developers honest
58.this is a good idea!
59.This will make selling homes easier
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
60. It's time Maple Ridge had a good bylaw! Very important!
61. You sometimes make a mess when work is being done then you cleanup.
62. Yes, I strongly agree with this
63. Yes, I strongly agree with this
64. I believe most owners care strongly about their property
65. Tree management plans should be required to accompany the tree surveys/arborist reports
that generally come in with development applications. An arborist report can simply state
that because of the development, all trees will be removed, but a management plan would, I
assume, look at the impacts of removing all those trees and need to consider the mitigation
strategies of removing those trees.
66. Absolutely!!
67. 3.1 Huge additional cost to development which we feel is already inflated, which in turn is
passed on to consumers.
3.2 They bought the land - maybe they want it in garden grass or vegetables. It's not up to
the City.
68. Yes!
69. I agree with the proposal to require management of impacts associated with large scale
clearing or tree removal on sites including fill applications, major landscaping projects,
and/or large scale clearing of lands BUT NOT ‘non-development’ sites.
70. I agree with making sure watercourses and runoff issues are controlled but not the
protection of large old trees being left when new ones can be planted in their stead. I would
also like to see something about trees of short stature (or none at all) to be planted near
power lines instead of these ugly cutup trees left after Hydro goes through and 'prunes'
them.
71. manage the developers not the home owners
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Comments For Section Four
# Response
1.Why not put the requirement for farming the land to 10 years instead of 5. This could be a
great way for a developer to log the property - benefit from the sale of the logs and then sit
on it while the investment grows. 5 seems like a reasonable time frame to sit on a real
estate investment - especially if it takes at least 2 years to get all your applications in place.
The bond for replacement trees should be at least two years. Most trees planted will not
show signs of stress or improper care/planting if within a year.
2.I get the principal of 4.1, but I have to disagree since it will possibly discourage people who
have no trees on their lots from every planting any....the risk being that if they wanted to
remove a tree they would then be in the position of having to meet the 16tree/acre rule. I
think there should probably be an exemption for small lots residences.
4.2 The replacement criteria for larger stock seem reasonable, except on the lower end.
There are many ornamental shrubs that after 30-40 years of growth, and have grown kind
of out of control, have a diameter of 20 cm. What if the homeowner simply wanted to
replace the grown out wooden shrubs with new shrubs, rather than trees.
4.3 There needs to be some restriction on unfettered tree clearing on larger parcels, so RT
is an appropriate disincentive. Care must be taken to distinguish between minor tree
removal and tree clearing. I see them as quite distinct. I think some definitions around
tree significance (size, age, history) and species would be important.
3.4.1 16 trees/acre seems to be arbitrary. It depends on size/quality/diversity of trees. The
authority to cut and replace(if mitigation is not possible) should be based on a
management plan. The objective should be no net loss of canopy/GHG
sequestration/wildlife habitat value, etc. It also depends on the configuration and siting of
the trees.
4.2 There should not be a 1:1 replacement ratio. It should be a minimum of like for like
replacement, based on an analysis as described above. Use some criteria such as canopy
cover, GHG sequestration, wildlife habitat value, etc. Again, the objective should be a net
gain in forest cover, not just maintaining the status quo, which is already a depleted forest.
It's the same principle as used in forecasting fish catch - shifting baselines. We need to use
a historical baseline when tree canopy was much greater than today.
4.3 I would not limit this to just City owned lands. Consider creating tree/forest banks on
private land and pay landowners to maintain/increase the forest. Why limit it to just city
owned land? Too limiting.
4.1: As long as new trees are not all lumped together, if the existing ones are spread
throughout the property.
2. Replacement trees must be at least 5-6 feet tall and of the same type & variety as being
removed eg. replace cedar trees with cedar trees that must be left to grow to provide a
proper buffer, if being planted as a buffer.
3. Agree ONLY IF NO OTHER OPTION SHOULD NOT BE USED VERY OFTEN $ IS NOT AN
ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT FOR LEAVING EXISTING OR REPLACING TREES.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
5.Replacement trees should only be use in specific circumstances. For example, a developer
cannot retain any of the original trees because they will interfere with construction of the
development. In this case, tree replacement should be designed in the landscape portion
of the development.
Tree removal on private land is usually to get rid of the tree(s) because of over growth,
dangerous tree or for land use requiring open areas. Only under specific circumstances
would tree replacement be an option, i.e. neighbour wishes to have smaller replacement
trees put in along the property line for privacy.
6.Why would a home owner have to replace trees if he/she removes them.
7.All of this shows how important trees are to all of us and to the land. Such wording
increases how much we value trees, and this affects the social culture in a way I think is
very positive.
8.I like the requirement for more replacement trees where trees removed are larger. I am
not comfortable with the number of trees/acre as this does not take the tree canopy or
size of tree into account. One could meet this requirement with small trees and a low tree
canopy.
9.Well now you're just confusing me....
10.good point to have mentioned the farming
11.The cash in lieu is simply extortion.....we'll let you do whatever you want (regardless of
bylaw) as long as you buy off the city.
12. 1.c. Is nothing more than a cash grab
13.I like trees, But if they die you have to remove them . You have to many city workers
driving around doing nothing already.
14.Compensation
A. Yes
B. No
C. Yes
For those who do not abide by the permit requirements BOTH replacement and fines
should apply. This will help to ensure that
the trees are replaced and a fine on top will be a reminder to those who chose not to abide
by the regulations. Got to be tough on this matter.
Replacement
Replant with the best,and appropriate species of trees suited for the situation.
For example: if a mature Redwood is removed, replanting with 6 oxydendrons or 6
deodoras or 6 Ginkos would not appropriate. Replacing a mature redwood with a one
gallon cedar is not sufficient. If replaced with a twenty gallon tree that needs to be
maintained for a year to ensure that it takes is appropriate AND include a fine.
It would be nice to get rid of free for all clear cutting on private property on speculative
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
future development properties. This practise is rampant in URBAN RESERVE lands.
15.Again, size of property. Do I need to count neighbours trees if I don't have an acre? When
does a bush be considered a tree?
16.As I stated previously, I would put more emphasis on retaining trees (conifers) than
replanting, which are almost always deciduous trees. In my opinion, one large healthy tree
retained is better than 5 new trees planted on a lot. You will find that developers will
rarely try to retain trees if they have the option to remove them. It’s just the cost of doing
business. The City of Surrey’s approach is to have an in-house arborist determines the tree
that should be retained within reason, i.e., they refuse a developer‘s request to remove a
tree if it possible to keep it and it does not hamper lot yield.
17.Maple Ridge does not have a shortage of trees, seems like a cash grab to me.
18.What you are doing is essentially proposing a fine for removal for developers. by and large
they will pay the fine rather than replace the trees. What will MR then do with they fine
money? My guess is general revenues. This plan is essentially a cash grab that will do
nothing to motivate developers to preserve existing trees and much to raise development
costs.
19.Does the district have to replace trees it cuts down - would they be paying themselves
(us!)
20.Replacement of trees leads to a larger problem longer term especially on non development
property. Taking a 12'-20' tree and replacing with 3 trees means in 20 years you will have
3 of those larger trees and when they get taken out 9 and so on and so forth. The entire
replacement tree is great for rural properties but poor for non development private
properties.
21.I strongly feel any tree that could be blown down and hit a house should be able to be
topped or removed by homeowner at their discretion. I personally saw the devastation in
Stanely park and fear future wind events and personal safety must be considered.
22.Again, just because a tree is on private property, doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on
more than just the property owner. Therefore, trees should be treated as a common
beneficial property to be managed, protected, and compensated for loss as such, which this
bylaw does. The benefits and potential costs of trees must be taken into account by private
property owners as part of the cost of owning land.
23.The people bought the land, it is their land??? is it??? they pay high taxes on it - yes they all
do. Maybe the land owner should get a tax reduction if they have lots of trees???? the more
trees you have, the lower your taxes are. This is absolutely ridiculous - dictating.
Trees are a renewable resource - they seed themselves, even in gravel driveways -
everywhere they want to. Maple Ridge is embedded within the forest, approximately 60%
of the community is forested.
This section of your survey is very vague on the description of a tree - the species and size.
It does not say what size or type the 16 trees/acre are to be - does a hedge qualify?
24.This bylaw may very well discourage the planting of new trees due to the loss of control
you will have on your own property long term.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
25. Does new Tree Bylaw specify a size requirement (percentage ratio to one removed) for
Replacement trees? I hope a 40 foot fir won't be replaced with a 10 inch seedling.
I think for a Tree Bylaw to actually be effective there should be a minimum tree
requirement for EVERY property (urban & rural areas) that has to be maintained at all
times, no exceptions. No cash in lieu, no parcel swapping for the transplanting, no farming
exceptions.
I don't think 16 trees/acre is enough of a requirement either. It would also, be a lot easier
to have it based on a percentage of the property ie: 10% treed area for lots under 1 acre
and 30% treed area for lots over 1 acre; doesn't matter if it's urban or rural.
26. It is not clear to me the difference between development related applications and non-
development private property - both could conceivably clear cut a property, so both
should be subject to the same regulations. The expansion of farming would be the
exception.
27. Our trees seed themselves and are in abundance in Maple Ridge . Maple Ridge is
embedded within the forest, approximately 60% of the community is forested. Fly over
Maple Ridge and you will see.
28. 4.1 Leaving flagpole trees, are not smart, well rounded trees are good to save.
4.3 aesthetics should be considered. Under story shrubs are important for ecosystems as
well and are part of the normal regeneration of forests.
4 On Selkirk and 224 street in the downtown core there used to be a beautiful southern
Mamolea tree maybe 60 plus years old, because some homeless people could site under I
the rain, this tree was cut to the ground, such a shame.
This tree could sprout from the base even after four years, but the beauty that was lost in a
few hours, might take decades. I hope it comes again.
29. How is the City going to monitor or enforce tree replacements once a development or
building activity has been completed? What about trees that are being taken out that are
dead or dying or where spacing is necessary to encourage a healthy forest area?
30. These requirements for developers is great, and would help to prevent clear cuts, but the
residential property requirements are ridiculous and are not case specific. What if a
property is under 1 acre, heavily treed and homeowner wants to clear some trees to plant
a vegetable garden or have somewhere for their children to play? Forcing them to replant
more is not appropriate and the cash in lieu is excessive and a financial burden tot he
homeowner. What will happen is that treed properties will go from being desirable to
many to unsellable to almost all because of the burden this propose bylaw will create.
31. I would like to know how you came up with $425 per tree, that seems way overpriced. I
can definitely purchase a tree for far less money
32. There should be no 'cash in lieu'. It should be straight-forward, cut a tree, plant a tree (or
several trees)
33. A blanket requirement for replacement trees makes no sense. What if you have a property
that doesn't fit. Again one size fits all situations is ridiculous.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
34.I agree, but it is not tough enough.
35.TAX GRAB!
36.All trees should be replaced.
37.The lot may not have the capacity nor it be appropriate to grow 40 trees/ha; the proposal
can not generalize properties.
A property owner should have the right to grow less than 40 trees/ha!
It appears to me that this bylaw could be used for developments, not single homeowners.
38.Exemption for dangerous trees along a water course.
39.Cash in-lieu contribution. Is that the same as a money grab
40.It would be worth including a schedule of what species and sizes of replacement trees are
required depending on what is cut ( see City of Surrey's Replacement schedule)
Also, the bylaw needs to make it very clear that 'cash in lieu of replacement trees' is the
LAST option, not an option equal to "new trees on the same parcel".
The bylaw should also detail exactly WHO makes the determination that "replanting or
retention is not feasible" and the process by which, or the conditions that must exist for
this determination to be made
41.Already have replaced, always will, , but this whole section does not specify native trees, or
reasonable control over what is replaced and with what.. It is a very open undefined
section. Does this apply to small residential properties, or only small acreages less then 2
acres, acreages over 2 acres etc. etc.
42.The minimum number should only be used if that number of trees already existed before
the current tree(s) are cut. If there is only 4 trees on the property and 1 is cut, you cannot
expect to add 13 more to get to the 16 minimum.
43.Reasonable in rural areas, not sure how that works with small lane type housing
44.Are you going to use the 10cm size in this calculation? Using this size may result that
almost all lots will make the 16 tree/acre, meaning that you will not end up with many
sites that require replacement trees. What about hedges? If hedges are included as trees
(rows of trees), you’re going to get odd results. I suggest you specifically exclude hedges
from the bylaw (no permit needed to remove a hedge (in whole or in part), and hedges do
not count in the calculation of the number of trees on site). Vancouver has a definition of
hedge in their Bylaw.
This will generate a lot of replacement trees, and likely a lot of large cash in lieu payments
to the City. We have found ourselves when encountering larger forested lots, reducing the
number of replacement trees just to make the number of replacements or cash in lieu
payments “reasonable”. But you do have a max cash in lieu payment of $17,000…
Replacement tree size requirements, species acceptable/not acceptable…
We take bonds for all of our replacement trees. Bond is forfeit to City if three is not planted
(in defined time frame, although we are not too strict on this). It’s like a prepaid fine; no
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
tree, no refund, and forfeited bonds go to our “Civic Tree Reserve Fund” for tree planting.
45. I like how you’ve specified a certain number of trees under which replanting is required,
however, I think it needs to be more specific. For example, if they are under that amount,
do they only need to replant until they reach that amount, or do they need to replant for
every tree removed? Also, I like that you’ve differentiated between the different sized trees
being removed, but maybe you also need to differentiate between differently sized
replacement trees (e.g. you either plant one tree that will be a large size at maturity, or you
plant 3 trees that are small sized at maturity). That gives folks the flexibility to plant the
types of trees they want, but still reaches your canopy cover goals
46. The proposed formula is complicated when it does not need to be. The Surrey model of
2:1 for all trees is much simpler and easy to understand. I also agree that primary
succession species such as Alder and Cottonwood (and even native Cherry) should not
carry the same replacement requirement and 1:1 for these species would be more fair. At
$425 / tree you will find developers will instruct designers to add more trees even when
they are not appropriate. They can plant trees for less so they will over plant to avoid this
high fee.
47. The cash-in-lieu amount should be much higher so that it is a disincentive to simply go
with the cash route. At $425 many landowners would simply hand over the money, and be
happy to have a cheap way to do as they please. The amount of money should also be tied
to inflation or otherwise adjustable so that over time it does not become an even more
minor cost.
48. At 40 trees per hectare that is a drop in the bucket. Especially when you are using a 4”
DBH tree as a protected tree. In Surrey we have calculated that there are about 50 to 60
12” DBH trees per acre. That means for rep. trees you will run out in no time and all your
extra formulas for extra rep. trees is redundant. If you are hoping to get 6 rep. trees for a
24” DBH tree, you only need 7 of them in a hectare to reach your maximum of 40. That is a
very low rate of return for removing a prime forested hectare.
49. Pros and cons with respect to exact numbers for replacement and cash in lieu values but
generally a good idea.
50. We pay taxes on our property. It is our land. It is our choice if we want to remove trees on
our property, especially in Rural Maple Ridge.
We would like to see some sun shine in on our property and it should be our choice if want
to replace any trees at all.
This is not a park for Maple Ridge, it is our private property that we pay taxes on.
51. NOt enough trees are being retained.
52. I think the costs per tree on non-development property could be too much of a burden to
take on for most.
The cost for cutting and clearing can easily be in the $$$ thousands so removal is not taken
lightly, now you want more trees planted adding more costs. What are the actual costs???
Pay cash.....how much? Can the individual plant them himself or do we need a team of
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
union workers to plant them? For development I agree more, but maybe the city picks up
some of the tab too as the developer is creating tax dollars for you to use by building
homes. I think the city should be an equal partner in some larger developments instead of
dumping the costs all on the developer. It could be in the form credits etc. Don't get me
wrong I don't want to see clear cutting like what was done in the past, but we all have
limits and I think the city should know that.
53.Generally, I feel most strongly that development applications should follow stringent
requirements than I do for private property owners who have a vested interest in
maintaining their land. Also, for development applications I think that the $425 cash
payment in lieu of a tree is not a large enough fee; I think it will make it too easy of a
decision for many developers to just pay the cash fee. I suggest somewhere closer to
double the fee or upwards of $1000 per so that developers give more consideration to
what they cut, and consider replanting.
54.This approach is fair and equitable and benefits the larger community
55.Replacement should be based on actual impacts not an arbitrary standard like 16 trees per
acre. The size of the trees that require replacement is too small. City of Surrey uses 30 cm!
Not all species are the same and should not be treated as such. In terms of replacement
value 3:1 and 6:1 replacement is too high; should be 2:1 and then 3:1.
56.I believe these proposals must be included in the new Bylaw
57.Again, properties in rural areas, under the ALR often are hay fields, and do not meet the
proposed tree replacement requirements. The proposed Bylaw should cover properties
being Developed and Undergoing construction, not ALL.
58.It has been my experience that rural property owners only remove trees that they fell are
putting their dwelling(s) at risk. This is not the same for urban property owners who
share common ground. Developers, on the otherhand, are an entirely different matter and
need regulation.
59.We have over 20 large trees on our property, we have planted many of them. We do not
want nor need a bylaw that will be difficult if not impossible to enforce, and one that
would be very expensive and time consuming to act upon. Again, education to the public
would do the city better.
60.Needs to keep more
61.Keep more than 16!
62.Need to save more trees.
63.Need to be more
64.Need to save more than 16
65.Need more than 16!
66.Keep more than 16 trees
67.Do more than 16 trees
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
68. Save more trees 16/40 isn't enough.
69. This means that the municipality is potentially involved in every front or back yard in the
whole municipality. I am for smaller government and less taxes not for more involvement
in my every day life and decisions. This bylaw proprosal is far too wide and sweeping a
document to address a few issues many of which should be taken care of between
neighbors and if not then there is litigation avenues for people to pursue if they so desire.
Smaller government not a growing bureaucracy!!
70. Need to be more than 16
71. Save them all!
72. Should be more retained.
73. Needs to keep more than 16. Save all!
74. Not enough.
75. Should be more.
76. Could be more. Should be a lot tougher.
77. Too few.
78. Only 16? It's not much - cut a forest - keep 16? Save more!
79. More.
80. Needs to be more.
81. Should be more. Replace all!
82. Save them all!
83. Would like to see more saved.
84. Great - but needs more.
85. Yes, all tree permits should require replacements and more than 16 should be required to
be retained.
86. Why just 16?
87. Needs more kept.
88. A greater number of trees should be retained.
89. Should be stonger for developers - Whistler has tougher restrictions
90. Should be more
91. But why so few
92. Re; # 4.1. Who comes up with 16 trees / acre? This person must be living in Whonnock
(close to a pot greenhouse). How many replacement trees will depend on numerous
variables. Do not specify this. It should be your arborist/forester decision.
Re; # 4.3. I agree and disagree! You have to be much more specific in order to make a
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
decision. If the trees are "pioneer species" , cut them down before your land is covered in
deciduous forest cover. The soil p.h level will go up and will grow grass for my sheep but
will not be a prime conifer site. ...and that's not true either....because alder fixes nitrogen
and will help conifer tree growth. Do not forget who's land you trying to rule. It's my land,
my trees and you may prevent an opportunity for some larger private land owners to
supplement their income by cutting trees. Owners with substantial property timber values
may take you to court to defend their right. I have NO idea how to make this fair, equitable
and legal. .....I wish you good luck!
93.HOw would this effect city sized lots?
94.I don't agree with only saving 16 trees per acre. It should be way more. I want see all the
trees saved!
95.Needs to be more retained. 16 trees per acre isn't enough!
96.More than 16!
97.More needed!
98.Need to keep more.
99.Needs more!
100. Save more!
101. Why save only 16 trees per acre? All trees are important - save all!
102. Keep more.
103. Agree but make it more than 16.
104. 16 is not enough.
105. Should be way more than 16 though. All trees should be replaced.
106. I agree but there needs to be way more that 16 trees per acre. All trees need to be
replaced!
107. More than 16 please! Save all trees!
108. But save more than 16 please. Replace all of the trees.
109. Agree but 16 trees per acre isn't enough - please make it more. Replace all!
110. Save more than 16 per acre. Protect more!
111. Save more than 16.
112. Need to retain more per acre.
113. All size trees need to be replaced and only hazardous trees can be removed.
114. Why cut? Only for hasard trees.
115. But keep more than 16 per acre - that is not very many!
116. Needs more saved...
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
117. But there needs to be more saved.
118. Keep the trees - twice this - or more. Save all!
119. Double this or even more. Save all! More.
120. There needs to be more trees left on the lot. Just stop cutting and then you won't have to
replace.
121. Replace all trees. Keep more than 16 trees per acre.
122. Save more!
123. Need more!
124. I'm glad to see the improvements in the bylaw but I believe more trees should be retained
on each lot, and all should be replaced.
125. Many more than only 16 per acre should be retained though!
126. But needs to be more than 16. Protect all trees! Retain more - no need to cut!
127. Better but needs to be tougher
Should only be allowed to cut hazard trees
128. Needs to be more than 16 trees per acre required! Trees need to be replaced on
development and non-development properties!
129. More need to be retained.
130. 16 trees/acre is not enough - more should be retained and all replaced. All should be
replaced. All need replacements.
131. More should be retained - clarification needed! Replace all! Replace all!
132. Why so few
if tree has to be cut, replace but only dangerous tress should be cut
133. More than 16 should be saved!!! Replace them all!
134. Retain more!!
135. More trees need to stay.
136. How do you determin the size of the 16 replacement trees.
137. I'm unsure about how these proposed mechanisms will work. I'm strongly in favour of
retaining trees but people on "small" lots will still be able to cut their trees and I don't
know if the mitigation measures will actually be uses. I hope so.
138. It is not reasonable where seniors are trying to exist in todays economy.
139. Trees grow fast enough by themselves.
140. Urban Yes Rural No
141. This needs to be clarified though! Needs more trees!
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
142. More than 16 trees per acre should be retained.
143. More should be saved!
144. New Developments should have to replant tree. Rurally our trees replant themselves
naturally.
145. Again do not replant tree species that will become future hazards.
146. There is no stipulation size or types of trees to be used for replacement. Also location of
same this should be recognized.
147. We have paid taxes on 4 acres for over 26 years in which 3 of these acres we don't even
use. In order for me to subdivide this we were advised that City water hook up to our
existing house would cost $100,000. Now you want me to pay even more by charging
$425 per tree on top of that.
148. Its our yard bought & paid for.
149. More then 16 should be retained!
Everything should be replaced!
150. Why are we not replacing above 10cm?
151. Can we do more?
152. Should replace anything above 10cm. bylaw is to protect anything above 10cm.
153. Should be 10cm and up!
154. All need to be replaced
155. More trees should be saved.
156. Need more retained & replaced!
157. ALL NEED TO BE REPLACED!
158. All trees should be replaced
more should be retained!
159. Need to be more!
160. more should be replaced and required to be retained
161. should have more retained!
Replacement is important!
162. Yes! Although there should be even more!!!!!
163. but more should be retained (16 per acre isn't enough!)
164. If cutting a tree - replace it 10cm and up.
165. more trees should be retained.
166. Why 16? That's not many. Why do tree replacements start at 20-30 cm-1-tree. The bylaw
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
protects trees 10cm and up. Tree replacement has to start at 10cm - 20cm. All trees need
replacement or we lose cover.
167. Keep more.
168. Lots with trees sell better
Keep as much as you can
169. This could be better! Needs more!
170. More should be saved! All should be replaced!
171. We (the people) see to believe the only way trees grow is fi we plant them. The Lower
Mainland has been clear cut over & over. With out "re planting". This Bylaw is "extorsion".
You ("The City") will cut your trees when it suits you. All the red tape costs everyone too
much money & time.
172. The number of required replacement trees is excessive.
173. Hopefully this is a common sense issue most owners are concerned about their property
and trees
174. The impacts of removing large areas of trees is the same, whether it's on a development
property or a private property. Also, a developer could own a property and not have a
development application in to City Hall yet, and clear-cut the property without the same
replacement requirements if we don't apply it to private property as well. For private
property owners who are responsibly selecting trees to remove on an as-needed basis, and
leaving an appropriate amount of tree coverage, this replacement requirement should not
have a large impact on them.
175. 4.1 It is up to the property owner.
4.2 It is up to the property owner.
4.3 It is up to the property owner.
176. Needs better wording. Needs to be more than 16.
177. Not enough. More.
178. More than 16.
179. But more than 16 need to be retained.
180. 16 trees is not enough per acre. They should retain more trees. There should be no
cutting then they won't have to.
181. Replacement trees nee to be large. Trees cut should be replaced. Private owners should
only be allowed to cut if a hazard, not, for cosmetic reasons.
182. More than 16 per acre should be required. Only hazard trees should be removed.
Proposed bylaw needs to more clear on this point.
183. Why only 16 trees? We need way more than 16 trees saved!
184. I believe a lot should have as many trees as possible! If trees are removed they need to be
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
replaced A.S.A.P.
185. 50 trees/acre.
186. 40 trees/acre
187. As many trees should be saved as possible in order to maintain a healty ecosystem.
188. Save all - not just 16 trees!
189. More than 16 though. More needed!
190. 46/acre
191. Need more trees!
192. 16 not enough/more. No cutting only for dangerous ones.
193. But more than sixteen need to be kept!
194. Replacement Tree requirements for non-development private property should be exempt.
195. There isn't a great deal of urban forest in the city because the city wants high density
housing with small lots or no green areas that will allow for this urban forest.
196. I think that the compensation rate should be higher, lest it become part of the cost of doing
business in Maple Ridge.
We have had a developer remove 'sick trees' on our property and they were asked to
replace them. They did, but the replacements were 1/20 the size, not even close to what
the original trees were.
197. Protect more
198. There needs to be more saved.
199. Save more!
200. More?
201. Perhaps more can be saved on each lot.
202. 16 not enough - 35.
203. No more.
204. 16 to low
205. More please
206. I agree, however not enough are being retained. Should not be allowed to cut.
207. Do more
208. All trees should be replaced or kept.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Comments for Question 4.4
# Response
1. I don't believe in a blanket exemption for agricultural land. There is also a difference
between ALR designated land, non ALR land, hobby farms and commercial operations.
Balance would have to be achieved here...there are BMP's for setback areas that farmers
seem to rarely abide. These setback areas could be suitable for small tree species that would
not substantially shade their fields. Certainly management of trees (clearing or thinning) in
these setbacks should be allowed
2. I'm always in favour of planting a tree whenever possible.
3. 4.4 I am sympathetic to farmers and their requirements for land; however, often trees are
removed for larger homes or secondary homes on agricultural lands. It should be only for
"bona fide" farming and not hobby farming or building a barn to house horses. They should
also be required to replace trees just like any other "developer" or property owner. There
are many farms in Maple Ridge that are not bona fide agricultural businesses. These might
make good candidates for "forest banks", where the property owners are paid and/or have
property tax reductions for growing trees.
4. ONLY IF THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS TO BE USED TO GROW A GROUND CROP. NOT IF TO
GRAZE ANIMALS ETC.
5. It would be great if there was still encouragement to have some trees on land that is
farmed.
6. This exception does not apply to sensitive areas that are protected throughout our
community.
Sensitive areas will be updated as the City enlarges the scope of protected areas. This bylaw
could allow for that.
7. You have no choice in this. The Right to Farm Act would trump any bylaw that would
hamper farming activies regardles of being in the ALR or not.
8. Actively farmed land should be maintained and helped/encouraged as much as possible.
9. I think farming and tree protection doesn't need to be mutually exclusive, and farmers
should be required to follow tree protection and replacement laws, as everyone else should.
10. Everybody should be exempt from Russian Replacement Tree requirements no matter how
their property is zoned. This would open up a whole new "can of worms" where people
buying land within the ALR with residential zoning speculating on having it removed from
the ALR, giving them the opportunity - with a falsified intent on farming - enabling them to
clear cut. After clear cutting, then they could say they do not want to farm any more and not
be an active farm the next year. Where does the City have the jurisdiction to decide if you
are an active farm or not?
11. Question: if this bylaw goes through, will there be a lower property tax rate for properties
that have large amounts of trees? These properties could become less desirable due to
added permit fees & loss of control of what you can/can't do on the property because they
are covered in trees.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
12.All properties can & should maintain a minimum treed area requirement.
13.Would love to see setbacks from watercourses enforced on farmland as well as other lands,
but that is not likely.
14.The question is, what is actively being farmed? Is a medical marijuana grow op actively
farmed? Is a small hobby farm that has non food source animals ie llamas or donkeys
actively farmed? What about a large garden that provides year round food for the family but
the produce is not sold, so does not provide farm tax relief to the family. What would be
required as a farm plan.
15.Dependant on purpose of the cutting -- if the intention is removal for building on the land
then no. If it is for an agricultural purpose related to removal for crop planting, increasing
sunlight penetration, etc, then yes.
16.All properties should be exempt, not just ALR properties that are actively being farmed.
17.As times goes on we will learn that farms should leave greenbelt areas. Blueberry farmers
especially, these wilder greenbelt can be a save guard for pollinations like bumble bees and
mason bees, hummingbirds, etc. Now that the introduced honeybees are in peril this makes
for a wise decision.
18.Great idea to include tree replacements or cash in lieu in consideration of future tree
canopy cover for the City and to balance out the impacts of ongoing tree clearing
throughout the municipality.
19.My only concern is if the land ceases to be actively farmed, but was cleared for the purpose
of farming, what then? Are they required to re-plant or is it allowed to remain as is?
20.I would want it to exclude hay farming land.
21.Now that makes sense. But what defines agricultural use?
22.Every body should have to replace trees. Their trees are as important as those of anybody
else. We have to protect our tree cover.
23.Exemption for homeowners too!!
24.Protect all. We lose as many trees to agriculture as we do to development.
25.There are some scenarios where important trees are cut down on farm lands; not all
farmers think beyond their short-term benefit, unwilling to embrace good ecological sense.
26.And what about rural lands not being farmed - parcels of acreage should be exempt if they
retain 40 trees/ha
27.Farm. Cut down trees. stop farming
28.As long as it is in the ALR
29.we already have farms(businesses) that drain the pee into open waterways-not replacing
trees would only make it worse. And open farm areas already are deficit in having trees on
properties!
30.I think 16 trees per acre should not be a hardship for agriculture, with prior knowledge of
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
the tree By-law it could be planned for and accommodated.
31. We need farms and if trees are in the way of honest farming activities they need to go. That
said we need to be careful about potential loopholes.
32. Full exemption for agricultural zoned lands may trigger a larger-scale tree removal
initiative as landowners worry about future regulations. Agricultural lands should simply
have a modified version where applications are still required, and farmers should display
how they will be using the land after tree removals. An arborist should still be involved to
assess whether property line and stream setbacks will be respected with the clearing plans.
33. There is a “right to farm” act. Hard to get around that and save trees. We only look at
saving trees if they are part of the actual farmer’s home’s landscape. Trees removed for
farming are required to have a permit but a much reduced cost.
34. Yes. Legally not sure the City of Maple Ridge could hinder farming practices with
replacement requirements anyway.
35. All lands should be exempt from replacement tree requirements.
36. They cause more tree loss than anybody else.
37. I would cover any loopholes though......i.e. land is cleared for "farming", but the "crop"
doesn't take so now they are trying to take it out of the ALR for development. Have a time
duration on it or a clause that documents land clearing and future development so if they do
develop then they owe you some trees down the road. I'll admit it is almost needs to be
done case by case as some properties and their circumstances could be totally different and
more significant on a surrounding area than another property. You think of global warming
and the clear cutting of forests in the Amazon to farm the land and you have to pause.
Farmers also pump a lot of chemicals/fertilizers into the ground as well so they need to do
there part as well.
38. I think this would need to be analyzed to ensure loopholes are covered, such as farming for
a year then developing the land afterwards once the trees are gone.
39. No, farms still need trees, be they shelterbelts or maybe even hedgerows. The right trees
can provide high quality habitat value for pollinators or birds.
40. Yes, doing otherwise would potentially violate provinicial legislation.
41. ALR land has to satisfy requirement set by that authority to qualify for Farm Tax Status.
Not all actively being farmed, and the exemption should address that.
42. Why should farmland be exempt?
43. Save these trees too!
44. Why have them exemt
45. Again, it also should include rural private lands where there is no chance for high-density
development.
46. No!
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
47.Farm trees are just as important.
48.Save all trees!
49.Strongly disagree with this!
50.Nice bylaw but needs to cover all of Maple Ridge's beautiful trees.
51.All need protection.
52.Farm trees are still trees and are just as important - they need protection too!
53.Really? NO!
54.Too much exempt only exempt dangerous trees
55.No way!!!
56.All trees are to be saved.
57.And it should be for all Rural Areas.
58.No way - they have trees just like us!
59.Trees can be replace on agricultural land if they are a size and type that does not interfere
with the agricultural use.
60.If this proposal is adopted, as long as they are being actively farmed
61.Farmers are the worst destroyers.
62.Absolutely no.
63.THESE TRESS ARE IMPORTANT TOO!
64.these trees should be protected too!
65.All trees need protection
66.These trees are important too!!
67.Keep everyone equal.
68.My answer to this question is let the farmer choose. Farmers should brow their product
without penelty. Population is growing the demand for food is too. Farm land is in the
business of feeding all even the burocrats taking food out the mouth of other weather they
are for or against any bylaw.
69.I wouldn't want to hinder agricultural capacity in any way, but I would like these to be
evaluated on a case by case basis, and decide based on the farming activity. I could see this
being a loop-hole and wouldn't necessarily want to have a broad exemption for this.
70.Agricultural areas should not be exempt.
71.Not only them, all owners should be exempt. 5 years is not a long time.
72.No exemptions.
73.They should not be allowed to cut trees as well.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
74.Their trees are as important - we have lost too many trees for supposed agriculture. While
we need food we still need to be able to have clean air which trees give us.
75.Trees on farms are just as important!!
76.All are valuable.
77.I repeat....save all trees!
78.NO!!!
79.Save all trees means no exemptions!
80.Replacement Tree requirements for non-development private property should be exempt,
in addition to agriculturally zoned lands that are actively being farmed.
81.Why?
82.This has too many exemptions.
Comments For Question 4.5
# Response
1.This is an appropriate solution when there are not opportunities on site and could go
along way to improving City owned land or land in which the City has an interest and can
come to agreement/covenant with a landowner.
2.I would only be in favour of this if no other options are available. See various comments
above.
3.ONLY IF USED A S A LAST RESORT AND NOT AS A WAY FOR ADEVELOPER TO PAY TO
GET A PERMIT TO CUT TREES. $S CAN ALWAYS BE PASSED ON TO WHOEVER IS GOING
TO BE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY ONCE DEVELOPED SO NO REAL COST TO A
DEVELOPS SO WOULD BE THEIR 1ST CHOICE
4.I do not think one should be penalized for not being able to put in replacement trees. If
trees are required to be in the area, then the development should be designed to either
leave some existing trees or space for replacement trees, or perhaps the development
should not be put in in the first place.
Not sure why we would allow development of land where we feel trees are required and
then charge for the trees.
5.I don't agree with this as my house has Boulevard trees and who maintains them?
6.This is just another form of unaccountable taxation.
7.That's just a form of blackmail ... a shakedown by the Municipality. If you don't like our
by-law...that's fine...pay us off and we'll give you the permit. Either you believe in your
own bylaw or you don't..... personally, I don't especially for rural areas.
8.It's called a tax grab, that's the way it looks.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
9.only as a final option, going back to my Sudden Valley, Washington example.....you leave as
many trees as you can, even in a big development, the houses have to be built in such a
way as to minimize tree loss, not the other way around, it's too easy to just write a cheque
and let a tree farm or parcel of land for trees do the work for $.
10.Only as a last resort when all other possibilities are exhausted. We agree with the
direction of monies collected.
11.Educational outreach?
12.Make sure that your policies are clearly written (with criteria) so as to not to be challenged
when a developer decides to cram a tree at the last minute and asks for their money
back.
13.As long as the funds are used as described, and not transferred into general revenue.
14.When has the city government ever dollar for dollar used such funds for a specific
program? I think this is a cash grab.
15.Only as a last resort, if there truly is no way to replace the tree on the existing property.
16.Street trees are planted in the City at a cost to the Developer. In retrospect the
beautification of these street trees are a hinderance to sidewalks and streets and an
unnecessary, astronomical cost to the City (the taxpayers) to maintain. They heave
sidewalks and roads, leaves everywhere, plug up storm drains, an hazardous course for
the elderly. Our Parks have enough trees. Urban Forestry education can be provided in our
schools that we already pay high taxes for. What is happening to our "natural resource" -
logging is a big industry in B.C. and provides employment to a lot of people, helping our
economy. Let's not destroy this.
17.No cash in lieu, no swapping land parcels for the tree replanting, no extra "significant
trees" designations. Keep it simple. A specific minimum percent of ALL properties must be
maintained in trees at all times. An under 1 acre city lot might be 10% and everything over
1 acre might be 25% (urban or rural).
18.Cash in lieu is just an "easy out" to avoid the bylaw. Minimum treed area requirements
must be maintained - no exceptions.
Money from the Permits can go toward education.
19.However, it should only apply when retention is not an option. You might also consider a
sliding scale of payment - like the scale for replacement - the bigger the tree, the more the
developer/landowner pays, rather than a flat fee of $425.
20.Education is great, trees help to slow the water on slopes and aquifers. This is important
on the Grant hill and Whonnock aquifers.
21.The cash-in-lieu is very expensive! That is higher than the cost of replacing a tree
(purpose to convince homeowner to re-plant), but again, when homeowner has legitimate
(moral not just as this bylaw dictates) reasons for cutting down the trees, it is burden that
will dissuade people from planting where there are no trees currently or from purchasing
homes with trees. What about people who want to cut down a mature fruit tree because
they are unable to harvest the fruit and it becomes an attraction to bears? Financially
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
burden them for trying to do their part to bear aware?
22.I am concerned that developers will happily pay cash-in-lieu of planting trees and
therefore skirt around the issue of replacing trees they have cut down.
23.Another cash grab
24.There should be no 'cash in lieu'. It should be straight-forward, cut a tree, plant a tree (or
several trees)
25.If replacing a tree makes no sense why would you further burden the homeowner with
additional costs
26.As long as replacement trees get planted.
27.Tax Grab!!
28.I think $425 per tree is too little, if you are going to cut donw a 24 inch (diameter tree) the
price should go us just like the number of trees goes up.
29.For question 4.5 I agreed with but I would not agree if this money went to general revenue
instead of tree planting or the out reach program.
30.My concern with the cash in lieu option is that some Developers may view it as just 'The
cost of doing business' and will cut the trees, opt for the cash in lieu and just pass on the
expense to future buyers. They should have to justify their position before being allowed
to 'choose' this option.
My other concern lies with the type of trees planted as replacements. A pretty cherry
blossom tree is not a suitable replacement for a mature cedar.
31.Only if used on development lands
32.Money Grab
33.As a last resort. As stated above, the bylaw needs to make it very clear that 'cash in lieu of
replacement trees' is the LAST option, not an option equal to "new trees on the same
parcel".
The bylaw should also detail exactly WHO makes the determination that "replanting or
retention is not feasible" and the process by which, or the conditions that must exist for
this determination to be made. It should not be the developers choice.
34.Prices for cash-in-lieu steep for an average person-so again a bias towards everyday folk;
and little control for large business farms. e.g. the monstrous businesses going up in rural
areas of Maple Ridge, using tremendous amounts of water-question-where is the run-off
wastewater going and who is checking up on these facilities?? and their waste
removal.?This would be considerably more important then fining people cash-in-lieu on
small properties.
35.Only if less that 16 trees per acre.
36.Only in special cases because it could be abused and used as revenue. Example –
developer taking out large trees stabilizing the land base and then the City planting
seedlings in a grassy park for esthetic purposes.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
37.Be aware that a replacement tree policy may not address the loss of canopy cover. The
removal of a substantial sized trees and the resulting replacement of a “new planting” will
lead to canopy loss.
I see this result in Vancouver. Hence why the Styrax japonicus is the most popular
replacement tree; it’s small…and why canopy loss is alarming to me…we are simply not
addressing lost canopy.
Perhaps there should be an incentive for homeowners/developers who plant trees that
will add significantly to the canopy.
38.Agree but the fee per tree is too high, at 425 no one will pay when they can plant a tree for
less. There will be little in the way of funds obtained at this level and there will be too
many trees planted on some sites in order to avoid paying, this already happens in Maple
Ridge for the same reason (they require 30 trees per acre).
39.While I understand that this type of program can fund many useful initiatives, it should be
set in the bylaw that this is considered the least preferred option, both to actually maintain
tree populations (the main intent of the bylaw) and to avoid any inference that the bylaw
is another means that the District is using as a ‘cash grab’.
40.Developers make a lot of money building subdivisions and such. When they do that they
are destroying the natural environment. There should be a cost for that. I feel personally
that the cost they pay is much too low for the damage they cause.
41.Education is critical to a good tree management program and re-placement of trees for
long term balance is also important.
42.Use some of the money to educate the city crews and to have more funding for the crews.
43.I need a dollar amount per tree to vote either way. Are we talking $425 per tree?
Who is doing the digging and planting? If it is the city workers then you and the taxpayer
are not getting our monies worth as I can plant a tree for a fraction of the cost of a city
crew which equates into more trees and your money going farther(bang for the buck). If it
is an outreach program with non-union volunteers then we are getting some value there.
44.I strongly feel that the trees are more valuable in the ground than they are converted into
cash and used for human purposes.
45.Like it! benefits the larger community
46.This has nothing to do with Rural property owners managing diseased or dangerous trees.
Again, should affect Development properties ONLY. I never understood why developers
and City plants trees underneath Hydro Lines.
47.For developers - YES! For rural residents - NO.
48.Educating will be much cheaper than enforcement, but the city should be able to fund it
without causing excessive hardships on it's citizens.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
49. If can't plant on lot then yes- but re-plant first!
50. Only as a last option if can't plant.
51. Just replace
52. Use cash-in-lieu only as a last resort if can't plant on same lot
53. Just re-plant on lot
54. Only if can't re-plant on lot
55. Replace
56. Many homeowners will be already delaying cutting down trees that need to be cut down
just because of the permit, arborist and tree assessment and municipal involvement and
now you want to add $425.00 to their costs - the home owner now will be caught between
his insurance company and the municipality trying to determine whether he can leave a
tree that should be brought down.Think of the repercussions for the home owner please.
57. If only used when not able to re-plant on lot.
58. Only if can't replace on lot but should just not cut.
59. Replacing trees should happen first.
60. Only use this when not possible to replace on lot.
61. Trees be planted first, if no room then cash in lieu.
62. Just replace them.
63. Replace!
64. Replace them first!
65. Replace first.
66. Replace on lot.
67. Replace it!
68. As a last resort - then okay but do replace first.
69. Just replant.
70. Replacing the trees on the lot should come first....
71. Trees need to be replaced
72. JUST PLANT TREES
73. Is this like our new Transit plan? Pay me now and I will spend it for you?...and I'll be back
for more in a few years....sucker!
# 4.5 has a nice ring to it, but it is not necessary. It's your money and you spend it in the
best interest of the community.
Maybe we get better ditch cleaning? Pick up the needles in our parks? Make a difference to
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
our homeless? Get more jobs in the community?
Well, you got the idea.
74.As long as the money must be used for this purpose and isn't funneled off to other projects.
Not for private lots though as long as they still have 16 trees per acre.
75.I agree with this but only in certain situations where the trees were not able to be planted
on the same lot!
76.Only if no other option!
77.Just save the trees!
78.This would only be for if trees didn't fit on lot (to replace).
79.As an option only if can't replace on lot!
80.As last option only.
81.Replace on lot!
82.If can't do anything else...
83.Need clarification. If used as a back-up for if you can't replace on lot then okay.
84.Only if unable to replace on lot.
85.I would rather see the trees just replaced on the same lot!
86.As a last resort...then yes.
87.Replace first!
88.Only use this (cash-in-lieu) if no other choice.
89.Only in certain situations.
90.Only if re-planting on lot isn't possible.
91.But only if not able to plant on lot.
92.Only if not possible to re-plant on lot!
93.Only as a last resort.
94.Only use if can't replace on lot.
95.Only if can't do anything else!
96.As a last option.
97.Trees need to be replaced. Some money could go for education.
98.Depends on circumstances. This is unclear.
99.Will it go towards the trees?
100. It seems that more things are exempt than not - please just make everyone pay! - and
replace the trees.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
101. Too many exemptions, and no enough requirements - trees on farms should be protected
better and trees should always be replaced.
102. Dangerous trees should be the only exemption. Trees on farms should be saved!
103. If not possible to re-plant trees on lot - then okay. Re-plant first though!
104. A good idea but please only use if you can't replace the trees on the same lot - it's super
important to replace them!
105. Yes, but only as a last option - sure.
106. Only as last resort!
107. Only cash in lieu if no place to plant
108. Only use cash-in-lieu if not possible to replace trees!
109. This section is unclear!
110. This should only be in certain situations if trees can't be replaced on same property.
111. Yes, only as a last resort though!
112. I no other choice but replanting should be number one!
113. Only if nothing else can be done.
114. Trees need to only be removed for danger only.
115. Depends? Don't understand.
116. Cash grab by City
117. Infringing on our right to freedom.
118. This is just a money grab.
119. I think that this bylaw is a good idea, and about time we saved our trees and environment.
120. Provided the money actually goes to new tree plantings and not into general revenue.
121. In certain situations this is okay but the trees being replaced is the main important thing
here!
122. There could be compromise - some trees and some cash. However, trees must be allowed
for.
123. Cash from big developers, not rural property owners.
124. plant
125. Trees need to be replaced!
126. To many cut without replacement.
127. We need tree grand kids. We don't want to just have pictures left to show them what they
were like.
128. Agree, but cash-in-lieu should only be as a last resort if not possible to replace trees on
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
same lot.
129. Confusing.
130. Yes, cash -in-lieu if not replaceable on lot!
131. ONLY IF POSSIBLE TO REPLACE ON SAME LOT!
132. Yes, but only if re-planting isn't possible - money can't replace our trees!
133. only if not possible to re-plant!
134. if impossible to replace trees on same lot, yes
135. only if not possible to re-plant new trees at location!
136. This section is unclear in the bylaw
137. This part needs to be more clear in the bylaw though!
138. In some situations when trees can't be replaced.
139. Cash in lieu should go up as size of tree goes up.
140. cash should be more
141. Plant don't cut.
142. But only if replacement on lot isn't possible!
143. This needs clarification.
144. Plant Trees
145. "Extorsion" cash-in-lieu is a big stick. Cash grab. Extra tax. Loss of freedom.
146. Equall no. of replacement trees to the number trees removed.
147. All food production activity on rural lands should be exempt from replacement tree
requirements.
148. I agree with the cash-in-lieu option, but wonder if the amounts should be placed in 3
categories, depending on the size of the tree being cut and not replaced, just as the tree
replacement numbers are grouped into 3 different categories, based on diameters.
149. You should not have to re-plant or pay cash in lieu. It is private property. We should not
be penalized for wanting to cut down a tree on our property.
150. Needs clarification.
151. In-lieu of what? Not clear. Cut only dangerous trees with an assessment.
152. We need to protect the trees.
153. Trees should be saved first!
154. What about 10cm trees?
155. What good is education if you don't stop the cutting? Every tree should be replaced.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
156. But every effort must be made first for each Developer & home owner to replace their own
trees!
157. This is okay but only if there is no other thing that can be done - example: if the
replacement trees don't fit on the lot then do cash-in-lieu but replace as many as possible
first!
158. No cut at all.
159. Trees need to be saved first.
160. If nothing else can be done then I guess so.....
161. Only as a last option though! I said save all trees!
162. Yes, as a last resort only!
163. I agree with a cash-in-lieu option that will SOLELY fund City tree plantings and education
outreach programs.
164. I do not see "the urban forest within the city".
165. Yes, a good way to receive funding other than property taxes.
166. cash grab !!!!!
167. Save trees first!
168. Only if impossible to re-plant on lot.
169. In lieu of what. Just don't cut.
170. Cash in lieu only if trees can't be retained or replaced.
Comments For Section Five.
# Response
1. It is too easy to get an arbourist report designating a tree as a "danger tree". As currently
structured you will end up with an astonishing number of Danger Trees is Maple Ridge!
Can't agree with the 10cm diameter on a urban lot. That is a crazy small diameter. Could
be a homeowners Apple Tree Sapling they planted in an orchard....what if they wanted to
switch to cherry trees?
Otherwise the fees seem fairly reasonable and flexible.
2. The fee structure is too permissive and does not provide enough of a disincentive for
removal of trees. I would have a minimal fee for removal of a tree under 10 cm, but there
should be a min. fee.
3. 5. 1.d. - 1ST MUST LOOK AT POSSIBLY CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE FOUNDATION
5.2, 5.3, 5.4 WHAT DOES "LESS THAN" MEAN - IT NEES TO BE A SET PRICE. REMOVE THE
WORDS "LESS THAN".
5.2 - WHY ARE TREES BEING REMOVED IF NOT TO DEV. OR PUT A BLDG ON IT?
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
5.3 & 5.4 REMOVE THE WORD "APPLICATION" FOR BOTH OF THESE. NO TREES SHOULD
BE REMOVED UNTIL A DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED.
5.4 - WHAT PURPOSE FOR LARGE SCALE TREE MOVAL IF NOT FOR BUILDING OR DEV.
4.I agree for the no fee for hazards trees. I think the fee structure should not be base on
number of trees or size of land. The fee structure should be based on the cost of processing
the permit, not how many trees aare being cut or the size of the property. Also, while there
is no fee for the hazardous trees, you still require a permit and a report from a licenced
arborist. The tree companies will charge as much or more than the actual fee to assess and
write a hazard tree report.
Hazards tree should not require a permit, and no fee.
5.Certainly hazard trees should have no cost for removal, but let's make it so that it is more
economical for developers to leave as many trees in as possible.
6.1\ You need to be a lawyer to understand the exemptions.
2\ Instead of gouging $200 .... a fee of $50 would seem more reasonable.
3\ And what is the 30 cm magic number? Free if under 1 foot...and $200 if over for first 3
trees. Just lower the price keep it simple.
7.Costs are way to much.
8.I do not agree with annual removal of up to 10 trees (less than 30 cm diameter) per year
for personal use (firewood, routine maintenance) on rural lots or urban parcels over 2
hectares in size; providing that more than 16 trees/acre will be retained - same concern as
previously mentioned about counting number of trees vs. canopy. There is no size
provided for the 16 trees. Ten tree/year is a very large amount!
9.Still getting confused. Stick with this principle: leave property owners alone if their
property is not under application. (Trying to use your language so you'll understand me.
:c) A permit fee is a tax for living on acreage and trying to keep it nice looking.
10.These exempt "free" trees should not require a permit. It wastes both the hone owner and
city's time and resources.
11.The 10 cm, 30cm.....measurements are the issue. Most trees are much larger. For
rural...(my case).....I'd like 3 trees per year. Full stop. The size really has nothing to do
with it...and this bylaw realizes that as its really just a cash grab from the rural area where
most of the tree cutting is needed for ongoing maintenance.
12.No Fee Agree with all except "e".
Annual removal should only apply to hazardous and dead trees only.
No removal on Urban parcels. It is used to pay for taxes or viewscapes. No one requires to
remove 10 trees for firewood and maintenance annually.
Fee Structure Not at all adequate and the language of 'up to' is too ambiguous and
basically wishy washy. This bylaw, particularly the fee structure is an integral part of its
success. It requires strong and clear language.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
13.Fees for removing trees for a basic property seems to be too intrusive.
14.What constitutes a “hazard tree”? Is this a fee per tree or for land? Why more for a permit
on lots with larger properties? It might be better to apply a fee per tree approach. As I
stated earlier, you may not want to charge any fees unless the fees are there to incite tree
retention. In that case, there may be a better way to do this. Many arborists and
developers can make an easy argument on what a hazard tree is. I believe that in Surrey,
they have decided that there is no such thing as a hazard tree as the hazard only resulted
when a house was put there after.
15.Here is how I see this. Thirty years ago a previous owner planted his live Christmas tree in
his backyard. It now creates a major shade area in my yard and I elect to take it down.
The government will want me to pay a fee. This is just wrong.
16.Who pays for the 'risk assessment' of hazard trees?
17.This is definitely an improvement over the old fee structure. However, I have concerns
about the cost of a tree risk assessment for a private land owner when a tree is clearly
hazardous. A permit fee exemption is all well and good, but what's it going to cost to have a
professional label that tree a hazard, when it's generally pretty obvious a tree is unsafe.
18.I do no agree with item with item "e" I would consider, 5 as being more reasonable as it
does not state whether there is an expiry date to the 10 trees, over a long period of
ownership of the land eg: 5 years will the owner be able to cut 50 trees in the 5th year.
19.I agree with the exemption except for: removal of trees to enhance the use of land for
agricultural activity on agriculturally zoned lands; active farming or a valid Farm Plan
must be proven
I think the ALR should have the same tree protections as everywhere else.
20.This is just a money grab, waste of time, effort, and an extreme burden to all property
owners. It is a huge, added expense to maintain your own property. Absolutely ridiculous.
Dictatorship. Russian rules. A waste of taxpayers money policing this tree bylaw. The tree
permit fee structure is way too complicated, too. For less than $80 permit fee (blackmail
money) you can take down more than 3 trees > 10 cm diameter in Rural Area - how many
more? 1000? How long is this permit fee good for? 25 years? Get real you guys - our
wonderful, brilliant council - save Maple Ridge! What a joke. This is ridiculous. Our land,
our trees, our private property - and believe me we have been paying high taxes for it, and
on more than one parcel.
21.Fees should not be charged to cut down nesecary trees on private residential property
22.Whether with fee or no fee the minimum treed area requirement must always be
maintained.
23.This is hard to understand - you say that the first 3 trees are exempt in rural areas, but
then you say that up to 10 trees can be removed annually for personal use/maintenance -
what's the difference?
Don't really understand the Less than $80 or $200 fee structure.
24.Question 5 - 2 meters is not enough as trees can cause a lot of damage to foundations and
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
roofs. I think 3 or 4 meters would be better.
What is a valid farm plan and how would you hold a person to that?
1a & 1f is not consistent with # 2 and seems unenforceable, as all trees removed could be
considered routine maintenance by some. That needs to be clarified.
25. its only a money grab
26. Most problem trees in rural areas are larger than 30cm and should be exempt. I see a lot of
problem trees along the roadways in rural areas that are larger than 30cm and look like
they are failing, leaning, uprooted, and rotting.
27. Looks reasonable
28. Greater flexibility is required for citizens that need to carry out routine cutting for
firewood or maintenance so a permit is not required every time especially if they property
owner is already protecting or managing alot of trees on site.
29. Unless I am missing something, this is different than what is stated in the proposed bylaw I
read!?! I am confused. These exemptions are not even listed and I just double checked.
It's hard to give an opinion when I have no additional context, which with this bylaw,
makes a HUGE difference.
What if the trees were not properly planted? What if they were planted in close proximity
and their growth is restricted? What if a property under 1 acre was over planted with
trees and making the yard fairly unusable for anything other than forest floor? In our case,
we took out a former x-mas tree that was planted against cedar hedges. Problem was,
more than 10 years later, the x-mas tree over took our front yard (just the branches mind
you) and killed the area of our hedge it was against. People don't always plan out where
they plant trees, unfortunately.
Having the restrictions will also create a burden for new home owners. They will now
need to add a bylaw search to see if any trees had previously been removed from the
property which will prevent them from removing trees if they choose.
I think the focus of the new bylaw should be on developers and & not homeowners and
also focus on education for homeowners.
30. The 'one tree under 30cm' is a joke. It is more likely that a tree has become too large and
needs to be removed.
31. the prices are different here than what was proposed on earlier questions, so now I am a
bit confused
32. I question exemption 1.f that states "If removal of trees to enhance the use of land for
agricultural activity on agriculturally zoned lands; active farming or a valid Farm Plan
must be proven". I think an additional caveat should be added here that allows for some
proof that the trees inhibit the planned agricultural use of the land use and an assessment
of the tree function and value. If tree function, such as screening, wind, stormwater or
slope stability apply, then this function must be replaced or repaired with alternate
plantings (ie. shrubs to one tree) or some other mechanism that will ensure the same or
equivalent ecosystem and aesthetic function is maintained.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
33.No fee for a hazard tree is misleading as you require an arborist report which likely is
more than your maximum fees.
Designating 30 cm diameter as the allowable size to cut in rural areas is too small. As I
understand your rules I would have to provide some kind of professional appraisal to
apply for a permit. So even though you say no fee to cut 3 trees under 30 cm in a rural area,
there would still be costs for that professional assessment.
34.There are way too many exemptions. Only hazard trees should be exempt. We need trees
protected. As a developer, its a cost that gets passed on to the buyer, and not a big one per
house. Other home owners should be severely restricted.
35.I believe one should include the size of a tree, a 100 year old tree I believe is worth more
than 4 x 25 year old trees.
36.I don't fully understand the proposed no fee structure with question 1a stating one tree
under 30 cm and then 1e stating 10 trees annually, this sounds like the same thing with
different numbers.
37.I think the City could provide a qualified person to review applications for tree removal on
single home properties that impact neighbors in order to eliminate undue costs of permits
and risk assessments.
Most trees greater than 30cm close to a small neighboring lot are impacting the neighbor.
Why not introduce incentives to landowners to manage their trees effectively? That would
be good taxpayer benefit.
38.Not only should these exemptions be included but should include no permit required as
well
39.Please see suggested changes overleaf.
40.I disagree with the fee structure if you insist on making it apply to all private property, less
than 1 acre in size, that is already developed with home and landscaping.
41.Homes in rural areas should be allowed personal use for firewood and removing
dangerous or dead trees without fees. Agree :)
42.This is fine but what’s to stop a wise resident from removing one tree every
month…Maybe one tree under 30cm per year; and maybe 3 trees under 30cm per year.
$500 for development sites seems low. We charge $154 per tree to max. $1025 per lot for
single family/duplex, and $154 per tree plus a base fee based on lot size, up to a maximum
possible for a big site with lots of trees of $10,250, and the developers don’t even blink.
Fee schedule sounds reasonable, maybe a little complex, and I believe developers can pay
more as noted above.
43.I like this fee structure! Keep it simple and cheap for residential owners to ensure
compliance, and more expensive for developers!
44.Fees should be higher than the cost of doing business for developers.
45.I agree that a “hazard tree”…no fees should be associated. However a replacement tree
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
should be required.
I do NOT agree that a tree under 12.0”/30cm is omitted from the fee structure. The permit
size should be the determining factor; given the numerous “undersized “ trees that could
be removed.
46. District staff should be involved to confirm when a tree is considered a hazard tree. An
arborist could be used for this, but the cost for an arborist to provide this service would
negate the benefit of not having a fee for hazard tree removal, and may cause landowners
to delay removal of a hazard tree to save money.
47. Similar a little Delta. What are the enforcement regulations for removing trees without
permit that require no fees? Will they be fined? Why? It was a free permit? Why not an
after the fact permit then? But then why ask for permits at all if they are allowed to do it
for free and no one is going to fine them if they don’t get a permit? Also it looks very
complicated to the homeowner who just wants to cut down an alder that started growing
in their back yard a few years ago. I would suggest making it as simple as possible with as
few exceptions as you can.
48. More flexibility would be good
49. No fee in the Rural areas. We maintain our property and our trees ourselves and it costs us
enough. Wind storms can wreak havoc. It is bad enough that we can't burn in the Spring
until April 15-May 15th - that should be more like February - March. It is way too late for
burning, just ask the nesting birds.
50. Keep it fair, have everybody pay except for dangerous trees.
51. You are making everything too complicated with your exemption structure. There should
be no exemptions. Everybody to need a permit, just no fees on the hazard trees.
52. I would agree with a $30 fee for residential, but not much more....cutting, clearing and
disposal is already enough $$$$.
53. I think that the fees in #3 and #4 are not enough, and that 2.c. should allow a larger
quantity than 3.
54. There should be more exemptions for homeowners that need to take care of dangerous
trees and should be exempt from replacment requirements. If one or two big trees next to
my house is a hazard and I cut them down I have to plant 6-12 trees in my yard? Doesn't
seem right.
55. This Bylaw should affect properties being developed. Existing rural properties should be
grandfathered.
56. I agree to question 5.2, with the provision that there be a stated time limit regarding the
span in which the numbers of trees can be removed. For example, for rural property, is the
limit 3/day, or 3/month, or 3/year?
57. Too much controls and cost from the city, please educate public on being stewards of the
environment. Most people own land because of the enjoyment they receive from taking
care of their land. The city should focus on this goal instead, it is expensive to keep land in
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
good shape. Adding costs will not help. There should be NO FEES for regular
landowners.
58. No exemptions
59. Needs to be fees!
60. No exemptions!
61. Too many exemptions
62. Increase fees. No exemptions.
63. Whats left covered? Exempt the fees only hazard trees.
64. EVERYBODY PAY!
65. Too many exemptions
66. I don't think the bylaw should be changed and i'm not sure if this fee is per tree or not.
There should be no need for exemptions as the bylaw itself is extremely flawed and over
reaching in scope.
67. This is a joke. Allpag. No exemptions.
68. There needs to be no exeptions.
69. I don't agree with all the exemptions, and there needs to be fees!
70. No exemptions!
71. Too many exemptions.
72. Proposal is ridiculous! No exemptions.
73. Fee on every permit. No exemptions.
74. This area makes no sense. Charge a fee for every permit. Only exempt should be for
hazard or dangerous.
75. Have everybody pay. No exemptions.
76. Nothing exempt. All pay.
77. Needs more fees. NO NO NO exempts.
78. Fee on all permits.
79. Not enough. No exemptions.
80. Fees proposed are way too small - everybody should pay more. Only hazard trees should
be exempt.
81. So nobody pays? Have everybody pay. No exemptions. No loopholes. Make enforcement
easy.
82. Too broad - cut all exemptions instead of trees. Fees for all but hazard trees.
83. Only exempt hazard trees. Other fees too low.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
84.Too low. Too many.
85.Needs to be no exemptions.
86.Needs to be fees for permits.
87.Not so much exempt! It weakens the bylaw! Just make everyone pay for permits with
dangerous trees the only exemption. I want to see the trees saved! Save our trees!
88.This needs to be adjusted - fees for every permit.
89.No exemptions!
90.Needs fees.
91.There are way too many things exempt.
92.No exemptions except maybe hazard trees
93.Fees too low
Only exempt hazard trees
94.To much exemp
Should be a lot more
95.IF EVERYBODY EXEMPT, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE? REALLY NOT DIFFERENT THAN OLD
BYLAW
96.Make Hyer
Too much exempt
97.WE NEED TO PROTECT NOT EXEMPT EVERYBODY
98.# 5.1 has some good news items. Pretty good.
# 5.2 Has anybody gone out to see how big a 10cm. dbh tree is? My x-mas tree is close to
this! Please, make it a min. of 20 cm.
# 5.3 and # 5.4 are good.
99.Needs fees for permits and no exemptions!
100. Add fees!
101. Where are the fees?
102. No exemptions!
103. Needs to be fees!
104. Please add fees!
105. Needs fees.
106. This weakens the bylaw - there are just too many exemptions. No exemptions - save our
trees!
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
107. Only hazard trees should be exempt...nothing else!
108. What bylaw doesn't even have proper fees? Add fees!
109. No - it should have proper fees.
110. No exemptions!
111. There are no strong fees! No way! Add fees in!
112. No way! Put fees in!
113. No exemptions. Good bylaws don't have everything exempt!
114. No exemptions!
115. Too many exemptions!
116. Way too many exemptions. Only exempt dangerous trees.
117. Needs fees. No exemptions.
118. Up the fees.
119. Permit fees too low too, way too much exempt.
120. Needs to be tougher.
121. Needs more fees. This is ridiculous!
122. What is proposed is bad - put fee on every tree permit - no exemptions!
123. No exemptions. Fees on all.
124. Exempt only hazard trees. Increase fees.
125. Too many exemptions!
126. No exemptions!
127. This is a good bylaw but it needs more fees for the permits - it seems that most things
(situations) are exempt!
128. There should be more fees!
129. There doesn't seem to be hardly any fees! - this makes NO sense!
130. Not enough being charged
Too much exempt Only hazzard trees should be exempt
131. I don't like all of the exemptions. Needs to be more fees!
132. to many exempt, fees to low
133. Fees should be required for all of the permits and hazard trees should be the only
exemption!
134. Should be fee for every permit
Too much exempt only exempt hazard trees
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
135. There isn't even any fees! All permits should have fees with hazardous trees being only
exemption!
136. Fees need to be higher
Only exemption should be for dangerous hazard trees
137. Too low
Too many exemptions
138. Who writes a bylaw with so many exemptions?!? Ridiculous! We need fees for permits!
139. Needs to be hiher
Too mucht Exepmpt
140. Fees way too low
Whey exempt everybody?
141. Do not trust the Mun Council & their employees
142. This is an obvious money grab by the city. All Rural Area should be exempt. 30cm is too
small clearing property should be permitted in Rural Area. 30cm limit will encourage us
to cut every tree when it is 29cm since we can never cut it if we let it get bigger.
143. No, we need to have fees and it should be more fair - not so many exemptions!
144. 1. The size of trees allowed to be reviewed (larger diameter would be more of a hazard).
2. Proximity to buildings should be extended to 5 m + (I like trees beside buildings, but
they need managing, replace before they get too
big: 30cm +).
3. Rural areas should have allowance of up to 10 trees per hectare annually, no size limit,
replacements mandatory unless small trees
already in place.
145. I don't agree with any fees for rural property owners. Last year I had to hire an arborist to
take down a dangerous tree in front of the house at a cost of $1800. That's already a
financial burden we have to pay as owners of forested land.
146. make everyone pay except maybe hazardous trees
147. Fees for everyone
148. Too much exempt
149. Too little
goes too far Exempt less
150. Only hazard trees should be exempt
151. why you want to exempt so many maybe just hazard trees
152. Set a good fee
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
Put some teeth in it no exemptions
153. Hazard trees should be obvious. Landowners should not have to have a Tree Risk
Assessment. Tree fees are too high. Too costly for landowners if there was more than one
tree to be removed.
154. Leave private lived on property alone.
155. Permits should have fees!!!
156. Fees for everybody. Nobody exempt.
157. Exempt only hassard.
158. Charge everybody - good high fee. Exempt hazard only.
159. Don't wimp out on this. Everybody but hazard exempt.
160. Too many exempt.
161. Too much exempt. Should be no exemptions - old and crippled trees are valuable too.
162. Too many exemptions, needs to be fees for all permits except hazardous trees.
163. Make every one pay.
164. Not good enough - there needs to be fees for permits!
165. FEES SHOULD BEE REQUIRED!
166. No
No because permits need to have fees
167. Needs fees!
168. No
No
Should be better/stronger
169. What happened?
We need fees for the permits!!!
170. What is up with so many exemption?
Where are the fees?
171. Fees to low.
172. Why so low? Why you have everybody exempt? Makes no sense.
173. Needs to be fees!
174. Fees too low. Too many exemptions!
175. Charge more. Nothing exempt.
176. Not enuf. To mucht exemt.
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
177. makes fees higher
only exempt hazard trees
178. Too low. Too many exemptions.
179. Fees need to be higher
Too many exemptions
180. Make fees big. None exemp. Protect all.
181. Too low. Only exempt danger tres.
182. Fees are too low to cover cost
What is the point if everybody is exempt?
183. Too low. Whats purpose of bylaw if you exempt everybody?
184. Keep older trees
185. Why so many exempt?
186. A good bylaw should have more fees for permits!
187. Needs to be fees for permits!
188. Put fee up
Nobody Exempt
189. These exemptions are ridiculous. Why bother if all exempt
190. Stupid, why bother if everybody exempt
191. More $$$'s
way less exempt
192. NO FAVOURITISM, NO EXEMPTIONS
193. Why go to all this work and then exempt everybody
194. NO EXEMPTIONS
195. Fees to Low
Too many exemptions - only exempt hazzard trees
196. THIS PROPOSAL IS NUTS WHY HAVE BYLAW IF EVERYBODY EXEMPT
197. If a permit is given for development. Get out of the way. Stop telling the developer he
must spend more time & money to do what he has already bee given permission to do.
198. All the trees on my property belong to me. They are my property and the city has no right
to ask for money from me in order for me to manage them.
199. Agricultural properties should not be exempt
200. Agricultural properties should not be exempt
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
201. People are sick of added cost look wisely @ permit fee so that cost is made easy to accept
as the project cost public will be more willing to co-operate with an agreeable fee
structure
202. Do you still require a permit even if there is no fee? If not, who determines that the fee is
not required?
203. closed system greehouse operations are permitted up to 75% lot coverage within the ALR.
If the property contains a significant number of trees, there may be negative impacts
associated with tree removal as most of the lot would have to be logged. "Removal of trees
to enhance agricultural activity" requires requires careful review.
Agricultural lands should not be exempt.
204. Property owners of land in Maple Ridge who purchased prior to the proposed tree bylaw
should be exempt (Grandfathered) from these new regulations.
205. Proper fees needs to be put in place fees need to be paid! For all.
206. Need fees for this to work.
207. This is not much of a penalty. There needs to be fees.
208. Fees need to be higher.
209. Need fees stronger!!
210. We need fees.
211. This is to be a bylaw not a joke.
212. Too many exemptions. Only exemption should be hazard trees and these should be
replaced. There should be a fee on every tree cut except hazard trees.
213. No because they are exempting to many trees and there should be fees for all trees.
214. Ridiculous list of exemptions - there shouldn't be any!
215. We need fees but higher to pay for workers.
216. Higher fees.
217. Fees too low.
218. Permit fee structure not tough enough.
219. To little. More protection exemp less.
220. This area of the bylaw needs to be more direct.
221. Save all trees does not mean have everything exempt! It means save all trees!
222. NO!
223. I can not believe how long this whole thing is taking! After waiting FOREVER for
something to get done - all we get is a questionnaire? What's with all the questions - get
on with it!
City of Maple Ridge [JUNE 1, 2015] DRAFT VERSION1
224. Good to see! We definitely need a good bylaw.
225. No exemptions!
226. Land under 1 acre should be exempt all Tree Cutting Permit fee structures.
227. I strongly disagree with the municipality trying to control what I do with my trees on my
property. I paid for this land & trees. I do not need their assistance on my property.
Living on a a rural property in Whonnock I clearly have different needs than people living
in the urban areas. I see many trees in the rural areas. I see very little clear cutting unless
it is a new development. Where is the municipality in that instance. We haven't needed
the municipalities input thus far and I doubt we have a future need. This would appear to
be a cash grab.
228. Permits should not be required to remove trees on private land in rural areas
229. You make it sound like there is no charge to cut down a dead tree, where is the mention of
forcing us to pay an arborist to say the dead tree is dead? The arborist costs more than the
permit! So I can't cut firewood is my lot is less than 2 hectares? Active farming must be
proven? It's already on the tax rolls so how is it to be proven? Your draft bylaw states
that a "farm plan" is to be made up by an agrologist or experienced farmer. An agrologist
costs a fortune, what is your definition of experienced farmer?
230. we paid for our property and the trees on it, they are our trees and we should not have to
pay to cut them down. Like wise I am sure the district does not want to assume the
responsiblity or liability should trees become hazardous and home owners cannot afford
to pay for a permit, arbourist and tree faller. We live in a heavily forested area and mother
nature does an amazing job of replanting herself. We have always enjoyed the forested
enviroment and allowed it to grow for the last 24 years, however this bylaw may force us
to cut young trees down before they reach the 10cm in diameter size in order to save
money in the future as we grow older and our income declines with retirement.
231. Fees too low. Too many exemptions.
232. Too much is exempt.
233. More fees. Why? Needs fees and no cut.
234. Needs more fees!
235. Needs to be better fees.
236. To many exemptions.
237. Need fees.
238. Too much exempt.
239. Too many exemptions, to small of fees.
240. Too much exempt.
APPENDIX B: Summary of Expert Comments to Proposed Tree Bylaw:
Experts were consulted from professional arborists, other municipal arborists, environmental
consultants, and development consultants. The following comments were most strongly expressed:
1.Size: 10 cm dbh is too small, too difficult to administer. 20 cm is more reasonable.
2.Permit importance: Important for those who cut trees in violation of the bylaw to have to
submit a ‘retro-active’ permit so that replacements and other conditions can be met
3.Health of Living Trees: Need to also address the health of living trees as well; should include
sound pruning practices and no topping because this has been proven to create danger trees.
4.Replacements on Farmlands: farms still need trees, be they shelterbelts or maybe even
hedgerows. The right trees can provide high quality habitat value for pollinators or birds
5.Significant trees: “shocked that large significant heritage trees carry no weight. Maple Ridge
has lost many of its significant trees in recent years. We should be making an attempt to
identify what is left and ensure the bylaw considers these trees.” “ Developers should be given
some kind of incentive to designing around the high value trees and builder should be required
to work around them as well. There needs to be more emphasis on the preservation of high
value trees, these are the one that make a difference.”
6.Education: equal amounts of education and enforcement. “Contractors need to understand
clearly the reasons for root protection, and the hazards to trees and people if they do not follow
the setbacks.” An education brochure or program will reduce the amount of resistance, and
also provide City staff with answers when they are fielding questions/ complaints.
7.Staffing: ensure that there is sufficient staff to administer the new bylaw. “How many staff will
you need to implement this bylaw and review all the arborist reports and plans that come to you
and then carry out site visits to review the trees in person.” Clerical staff can probably help with
questions and issue permits. No need for specialized technical people for that. Training of
clerical staff can help qualified tree people to be out on site to evaluate the trees.
DEVELOPMENT:
8.Fees: Fees for development tree applications are too low and these fees are used in other cities
to employ qualified tree experts and staff persons needed to administer the bylaws.
9.Protection measures: Important to have protection measures as part of a Tree Bylaw, to ensure
retained trees on development sites are properly protected during construction.
10.Property lines: Development Tree plans need to consider impacts to trees along adjacent
property lines; and should indicate protection and mitigation for impacts to these trees.
11.Retention: “more stringent measures are needed to force developers to give tree retention
much consideration before leveling and clear cutting a site.” A pre-development process to
protect and retain is crucial to smart development.
12.Hydrology: Changes in hydrology and drainage after clear cutting sites must be taken into
consideration
“Maple Ridge is NOT Vancouver. The ecosystem and biodiversity is different and efforts to encourage
protective measures will be favorable for this lucky community…because Maple Ridge is truly a gem.”
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C:
Environment Staff Tree Bylaw Site Visit Observations and Comments:
Urban Area:
1.Trees being removed may not require replacements if there are enough trees being left on the
lot. All lots will be responsible for contributing to the community tree canopy goal of 30% by
way of supplying the equivalent of 40 trees per hectare (16 trees per acre) in way of retention,
replacement or cash-in-lieu.
2.Replacement tree size for single family and multi-family lots will be a minimum height, caliper
(diameter stem) and/ or pot size, to ensure that the replacement tree is of a size to offer
significant tree canopy within a few years; but small enough to ensure that property owners do
not need to hire extra equipment to plant the replacement trees.
3.If a tree has outgrown its space, and was perhaps not the right tree planted for the space, it may
end up causing damage to infrastructure on the property. These cases should still require a
permit so that City staff can verify this to be the case. Replacements would be calculated same
as in #1 above.
Rural Area:
4.Owners of wooded sites in rural areas should be able to effectively manage their tree stands,
but it may be desireable to ensure that significantly sized trees are protected for their aesthetic
and green infrastructure value (including stormwater management, groundwater, soil
stabilization, temperature controls, pollution abatement). All large tree removals should require
a permit; but removal of smaller trees (< 50 cm) if not wholesale clearing, should be more
lenient for firewood use and forest management.
5.Selective thinning of dense forest areas should be to remove the smaller trees and retain the
larger ones; species and health taken into consideration.
6.There should be a larger minimum number of trees that can be cut in the rural area without a
permit, provided the trees are smaller than 50 cm dbh, and that the land is not being cleared of
trees.
APPENDIX C
Development Areas:
7.Development sites require strong regulations around protection of conservation areas and
retained trees. There must be more monitoring to ensure trees and areas identified for
conservation are adequately protected from construction activity so that the trees do not
decline and die after the development is complete. This forces a burden onto new property
owners and the City for removal of dead/dying trees that were not properly protected.
8.Tree Risk Assessments before and after development are essential to ensure costs of hazard
trees that have resulted from development do not become the burden of property owners and
City.
9.Blowdown is a significant factor when creating new forest edges with clearing as a result of
development, building, farming or clearing for more open space on a lot. A new forest edge can
result in trees of good health, and significant size being blown down over the first couple years
of the new edge being created due to the trees not having been exposed to the winds before.
Recognition and mitigation for the effects of blowdown should be considered in all clearing
events.
10.Hydrological changes can be significant when large tracts of land are cleared, especially on
sloped areas and over vulnerable aquifers. Professional consultation and recommendations
should be expected to address stormwater, drainage, and groundwater impacts.
Enforcement:
11.If a tree is removed without a permit, and the City is informed, compliance will be met by
submission of a Tree Permit application and planting of replacements as would have been
required through the proper process. Fines will be administered to those who do not come into
compliance and meet replanting conditions.
General:
12.All very large trees (> 50 cm dbh) should require a permit; and if the tree is in good health, and is
not out-growing its space or causing hardship, it should be retained; as these large trees
contribute significant value to the community’s aesthetics and to the green infrastructure
(stormwater management, groundwater, soil stabilization, temperature controls, pollution
abatement).
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
PROPOSED TREE MANAGEMENT BYLAW
BYLAW NO. 7133-2015
A bylaw to manage the urban forest and tree canopy and regulate tree cutting and removal
in Maple Ridge.
WHEREAS, it is expedient to repeal Maple Ridge Tree Protection Amending Bylaw No. 7134-
2015 and replace it with this bylaw.
AND WHEREAS, Section 708 of the Municipal Act enables Council by bylaw to regulate and
prohibit the cutting and removal of trees;
AND WHEREAS, Section 709 of the Municipal Act enables Council to permit and establish
conditions and fees for permit issuance;
AND WHEREAS, the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan references tree protection as a
goal of the community in sections 5.3 (Objectives and Policy), 5.3.1 (Hillside Development),
5.3.2 (Visual Character), 5.5 (Air Quality) and 5.6 (Preparing for Climate Change)
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.Citation
This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No.
7133-2015”
2.Repeal
The “Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000” as amended is hereby repealed.
3.Definitions
“Applicant” means the person whose name appears on the application to the City for a
Permit
“Agricultural use” means the use of land for the growing of crops or the raising of livestock
as permitted under the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw.
“Arborist Report” means a technical report written by a Certified Arborist;
“Blowdown” means trees that have been blown down by the wind as a consequence of the
creation of a new forest edge that is not wind stable
APPENDIX D
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 2
“Caliper” means the diameter of the trunk of a tree at 30.5 cm from the ground.
“Certified Arborist” means a person who is certified by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA)
“Certified Tree Risk Assessor” means a person who has a valid Tree Risk Assessment
Qualification as awarded by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
“City” means the City of Maple Ridge
“City Arborist” means a person employed by the City of Maple Ridge, who has current
certification as a Certified Arborist and uses that certification as part of their job
description.
“Critical Root Zone” means the area of land surrounding the trunk of a tree contained within
a circle of radius equal to the DBH of the tree multiplied by 18; or equal to the dripline of
the tree; whichever is greater.
“Conservation Area” means a watercourse setback area as defined by the Streamside
Protection Regulations or slopes over 25%
“Cut” and “Cutting” means the removal, knocking down or cutting into, any or all parts, of
any tree in such a manner that damages or is detrimental to the health of any tree; and
shall include the topping of a tree.
“Damage” and Damaging” means any action which will cause a tree to die or to decline in
health; including, but not limited to, cutting, ringing, poisoning, burning, topping, or
excessive pruning.
“DBH” means the diameter of a tree at breast height (130 cm) above natural grade of the
ground, as measured from the base of the tree. For multi-stemmed trees, the DBH is
equal to the cumulative total of the DBH of each stem.
“Development Permit Area” means the areas so described within the current Maple Ridge
Official Community Plan Bylaw as Development Permit Areas; areas that have been
designated under the Local Government Act as requiring issuance of a development
permit prior to the commencement of development.
“Drainage System” means the system and network of streams, creeks, waterways,
watercourses, waterworks, ditches, drains or sewers located in the City on private or
public property, by which water is conveyed or travels from lands.
“Drip Line” means the vertical line extending down from the outer most branches of the tree
to the natural grade of the land.
“Environmental Technician” means the person employed by the City of Maple Ridge with
the job title of Environmental Technician.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 3
“Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge” means a fluid discharge containing suspended
solids that exceed 75 mg/litre above background levels of suspended solids in the
Drainage System to be determined by measuring the natural or existing suspended
solids upstream of the point of discharge in the Drainage System and the excessive
suspended solids discharge at the immediate outlet point of the discharge.
Farm Plan” means a plan prepared by a professional Agrologist or an experienced farmer
that indicates the proposed use of agriculturally zoned land for agricultural purposes.
The Farm Plan would indicate placement of structures and production areas, ponds,
pastures and fencing specifically for agricultural use.
“Geotechnical Protection Area” means the area of land designated for slope protection
within a geotechnical or steep slope Covenant.
“Hazard tree” means a tree that is determined to be in a condition dangerous to people or
property by a Certified Tree Risk Assessor.
“Hedge” means five or more trees or shrubs, less than 5 metres (16 feet) high, and planted
less than 1.2 metres (4 feet) apart
“Heritage Protection Area” means the area of land designated for tree protection as shown
in Schedule “A”.
“High Sensitivity Area” means an area that has a steep slope, is in a geotechnical protection
Covenant, within a watercourse protection area, over vulnerable groundwater aquifers,
or any other environmentally sensitive area as designated by the City from time to time.
“Large Woody Debris” means fallen, dead trees and snags, eroded root structures and logs
within the Watercourse Protection Area.
“Large Scale Building Permit” means a building permit issued under the Maple Ridge Zoning
Bylaw that includes the following:
Building complexes such as multiple residential developments (apartments,
duplex, etc.) or townhouses with more than 5 units;
A building that is designated for industrial, commercial, or institutional use;
A large structure where the building lot coverage is equal to or larger than 2000
m2.
“Manager of Development and Environmental Services” means the Manager of
Development and Environmental Services for the City of Maple Ridge and/or designate.
“Natural Causes” means death or decline of a tree as a result of natural diseases, pests,
climatic conditions, or inherent structural defects.”
“Owner” means the registered owner or owners of a fee simple parcel of land, or the strata
corporation of a strata lot.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 4
“Permit” means a permit issued by the Manager of Development and Environmental
Services under the authority of this bylaw to cut or remove a tree or trees.
“Protected Tree” means any tree within the City of Maple Ridge boundaries as per Section 4
of this Bylaw.
“Prune” or “pruning” means the selective cutting or removal of living or dead branches of a
tree consistent with promoting the health and growth of the tree, as consistent with the
International Society of Arboriculture’s standards of arboriculture practice. This does not
include topping of a tree.
“Public Utility” means a utility service provided by the City of Maple Ridge, BC Hydro, Telus,
Terasen Gas and any other company, utility or authority providing a public service or
utility.
“Removed or Removal” in relation to a tree means to remove in whole or substantial parts
from the main stem (trunk).
“Replacement tree” means a tree required to be planted to replace a tree cut, removed or
damaged in accordance with this Bylaw.
“Retention Tree” means a tree that an owner intends to retain or has retained or is required
to retain as part of a Development or Building Permit.
“Rural Area” means areas outside the Urban Area Boundary as identified on map Schedule
B of the current Maple Ridge Official Community Plan.
“Significant Tree” means a tree that has been identified by a Certified Arborist as being one
of the following:
Outstanding specimen in size or shape;
Healthy mature or old growth tree
Rare species, or unique growth;
Historical – planted by a pioneer or has other historical background;
Landmark – usually a single well-known tree;
“Steep Slope” means an area of land with an average natural slope greater than 25%.
“Street Tree” means a tree that has been planted on the Road Right of Way as a
requirement for development by the City. A Street Tree is owned and maintained by
the City.
“Tree” means a woody perennial plant that has a trunk or stem, including its root system.
“Tree Cutting Permit” means a written permit issued by the Manager of Development and
Environmental Services under authority of this Bylaw.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 5
“Tree Fund” means the money collected by the City through replacement cash-in-lieu as per
Schedule “B” of this Bylaw for the sole use of replacing lost tree canopy through the
planting of trees on public and private properties, and affiliated extension activities to
educate the public on the importance of trees and requirement of tree permits within the
City.
“Tree Protection Barrier” means a barrier erected to protect a tree and its roots from
damage during site work or construction; and as specified in Schedule “C” of this Bylaw.
“Tree Risk Assessment” means a qualified assessment of the risk of trees using the most
current International Society of Arboriculture Tree Risk Assessment Standards and Tree
Risk Assessment Qualification.
“Tree Survey Plan” means a survey plan prepared by a registered BC Land Surveyor. The
plan illustrates the location of trees in relation to the property lines of a lot, along with
the size and species of each tree, plus any other information required for the purpose of
assessing a Tree Cutting Permit Application.
“Topping” means the removal of major portions of a tree crown by cutting branches to stubs
or cutting of the main leader or branches, and includes re-topping of previously topped
trees.
“Urban Area” means the area of land designated as Urban on map Schedule B of the current
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan.
“Watercourse Protection Area” means the area of land within a pre-determined distance
from the top-of-bank on either side of a watercourse as determined by the current
Streamside Protection Regulations that have been adopted by City Council; or as
determined by the City Environmental Planner.
“Wildlife Tree” means a tree or part of a tree that is identified for retention by a Certified
Arborist or Qualified Environmental Professional for its value in providing present or
future habitat for the maintenance or enhancement of wildlife.
4. Application
4.1 This bylaw applies to Trees on any parcel of land within the City of Maple Ridge and
having a diameter of at least 20 centimetres measured from a height of 130
centimetres above the natural grade.
5. Prohibitions
5.1 No person may remove a tree without a valid permit issued pursuant to this bylaw.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 6
5.2 Without limiting Section 5.1, no person shall damage a tree by carrying out any of the
following:
a) cutting back the top portion of a tree’s branches so as to significantly alter its
normal canopy (topping), except if the tree forms part of a Hedge;
b) cutting or damaging the roots within the Critical Root Zone of a growing tree
c) operating heavy equipment within the Critical Root Zone of a growing tree
d) placing fill, building materials, asphalt or a building a structure within the Critical
Root Zone of a growing tree
e) stripping bark, gouging or damaging the trunk of a tree
f) depositing, within the Critical Root Zone of a growing tree, concrete washout or other
liquids deemed to be harmful to the health of a tree
g) removing soil from within the Critical Root Zone of a growing tree
h) undermining the roots within the Critical Root Zone of a growing tree
i) altering the groundwater or surface water levels within the Critical Root Zone of a
growing tree
5.3 No person is to fail to comply with the terms and conditions of a permit issued
pursuant to this bylaw.
5.4 No person will cause or permit any Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge to be
released, directly or indirectly into the Drainage System as a result of works pursuant
to this bylaw; and as in compliance with the current City of Maple Ridge Watercourse
Protection Bylaw.
5.5 No person shall cut, prune, top, damage or remove a tree that is designated as a Street
Tree and is under regular maintenance by the City.
5.6 No person shall cut, prune, top, damage, or remove a tree during the Migratory Bird
Nesting Season as defined in the Provincial Wildlife Act (March 15 to August 1) without
first having the tree assessed by an appropriately qualified environmental professional
who is not affiliated with the tree removal contractor, to determine the presence and
status of bird and/or wildlife nests. Evidence of active nesting indicates that trees shall
not be cut until the end of nesting season, unless a Permit from the Ministry of
Environment is issued to the Applicant.
5.7 No person shall Cut or Remove a tree from the Heritage Protection Area as prescribed
on Schedule “A” unless a qualified Tree Risk Assessor submits a full report including
recommendations for safety reasons only; and the City approves the work.
5.8 No person shall Cut or Remove a tree from a Watercourse Protection Area or on a
steep slope over 25%, or unless a Certified Tree Risk Assessor submits a written report
as proof that the tree is hazardous and the Manager of Development and
Environmental Services has approved the removal.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 7
6. Exemptions
6.1 No Permit shall be required to cut or remove a tree where:
a) trees are on parks or municipally owned lands designated for conservation, or on
municipally owned servicing easements or Rights of Way, and the Cutting or
Removal is conducted by or on behalf of the City of Maple Ridge;
b) Cutting or Removal of trees is for the maintenance of above ground utility
conductors by a public utility or its contractors; and is performed following the
current professional arboricultural standards;
c) An Owner prunes a tree on private property as required. Pruning shall be carried
out using sound arboricultural practice, which ensure the health and
sustainability of the tree,including no topping;
d) Cutting or Removal of a Hedge;
e) Cutting or Removal of less than 3 trees (20-50 cm dbh) per year in the Rural Area
and Urban Reserve; as long as there remains 40 trees/hectare over 20 cm dbh
on the site, and as long as the trees are not over 50 cm dbh;
f) A tree that is a hazard, dead, dying or diseased as proven by a Certified Arborist
and approved by the City. A Tree Risk Assessment may be required by the City;
g) approval for tree removal has been obtained from the BC Ministry of Forests;
h) trees are part of a licensed tree nursery or tree farm operation;
i) trees are being removed for survey lines less than 2 meters wide, and the trees
are less than 25 centimetres dbh;
j) tree Cutting or Removal is required for construction, improvement, repair or
maintenance of public works or services undertaken by a government authority;
k) a tree has been damaged and is in imminent danger of falling and injuring
persons or property; and it is not possible to obtain a Tree Cutting Permit prior to
the tree falling. The owner must report the cutting of the tree to the City
(Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate) within the
next business day. The reporting must include pictures of the tree before it is
removed, in the context of a permanent structure to determine the location of the
tree. The tree cannot be removed from the site until a City Arborist has visited the
lot to determine that the tree fits within this category.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 8
6.2 With respect to exemptions a, b, j and k, an Arborist must be present to instruct and
direct crew in the removal and pruning of trees, and in the protection of trees, to
minimize tree loss and to protect trees on adjacent lands.
7. Permits
7.1 When a tree is permitted to be Cut or Removed, such activity shall be undertaken in
compliance with the conditions imposed by this Bylaw and all special conditions
specified in the Permit.
7.2 Pruning a tree within a Conservation Area or in a Protective Covenant Area or on Steep
Slopes (>25%) requires a Permit. Topping is not a sound a rboricultural practice, and
will require a Permit with proper justification.
7.3 All landowners and contractors working for landowners must ensure that all tree work
is performed in a safe manner as outlined in WorkSafeBC regulations and International
Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices. Failure to do so is an offence
under this Bylaw.
7.4 An application for a permit shall:
a) be submitted to the the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or
designate
b) include a fully completed and signed form as set out in Schedule “E”; and
c) be accompanied by the applicable permit fee in accordance with the current Maple
Ridge Development Application Fees Bylaw.
7.5 A permit issued under this bylaw will be valid for a period of 12 months from the date
of issuance and is non-transferable.
7.6 An Arborist Report will only be accepted by the City within one year of the date of
issuance of the arborist report.
7.7 Written Notice of the Tree Cutting Permit shall be posted on the lot for which the Permit
has been issued in a location visible to the public at least 24 hours prior to the
commencement of any tree cutting or removal work; and shall remain posted on the lot
until the completion of the work. The notice shall provide the Permit number, address,
number of trees to be removed, and a City contact number.
7.8 Written Notice of the Tree Cutting Permit shall be given to any adjacent property owner
where the trees to be cut stand within 3 meters of the common property line, at least
48 hours in advance of the tree work beginning. The notice shall provide the Permit
number, address, and a City contact number.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 9
7.9 Written notice of the Tree Cutting Permit, if related to development or large scale
building, shall be given to each owner that shares a common property line at least 48
hours prior to the work taking place. The Written Notice shall include the Permit
number, the address, the tree removal and retention plan, the estimated start and end
times of the tree work, and a contact number for the developer, contractor, and the
City.
7.10 Significant Trees must fit at least one of the following circumstances for a Permit to be
issued:
a) A Certified Tree Risk Assessor submits a written report to the satisfaction of
the Manager that a tree is a hazard to the safety of persons or property; that
the tree is hazardous, dead, damaged, diseased or in decline beyond
expectation of recovery. There will be no application fee required for removal
of a hazard tree.
b) The tree prevents the owner of the lot on which the tree is located from
developing or using the lot in a manner permitted under the Zoning Bylaw.
c) The tree is within 2 meters of an existing building foundation wall; no
application fee will be required for removal of such a tree. Replacements will
be required as per Schedule B.
d) The tree is proven to be causing structure or infrastructure damage; no
application fee will be required for removal of such a tree. Replacements will
be required as per Schedule B.
e) A rezoning plan, subdivision plan, large scale building plan or Development
Permit has been approved and identifies tree removal and protection areas in
an approved Tree Management Plan as outlined in Schedule “D”.
f) the Cutting down of trees is required to site a building, driveway, septic field,
roadway, or utility corridor as approved by a Building Permit (for Large Scale
Building Permits see 7.10.e). The Building Permit must demonstrate a best
level of effort for tree retention with respect to location and size of the
building.
g) The trees are on a lot zoned for agricultural use, and a Farm Plan shows that
the trees will interfere with the best use of the land for agricultural purposes,
and the owner agrees in writing that no application for subdivision, rezoning,
or development of that lot will be accepted by the City for a period of five years
from the date of issuance of the Tree Cutting Permit.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 10
8. Plans and Conditions
Where an application for a permit pursuant to this bylaw is required, application will be
made in writing to the Manager of Development and Environmental Services and must
contain the following information:
a. Name and address of the applicant.
b. Name and contact information for the Tree Contracting Company, with proof
of a current Business License to work in Maple Ridge, a minimum of $1
million liability insurance, and good standing with WorkSafe BC.
c. Statement of purpose and rationale for the proposed tree cutting; Arborist
Report may be required; BCLS property line survey may be required.
d. Where there is no development application for the property, a site plan
indicating the location and size of trees to be Removed, trees to be protected,
topographic and hydrographic features, structures, roads and other pertinent
information useful in the determination of location. Tree Survey may be
required.
e. Applications for rezoning, subdivision, large scale building or development
permits or when clearing more than 20 trees require a comprehensive Tree
Management Plan, prepared by a Certified Arborist and as set out in
Schedule “D”.
f. Proposed planting plan for all required replacement trees as per Schedule
“B”.
g. suitable method for appropriate disposal of any woodwaste/clearing debris.
h. method for control of drainage and erosion impacts from the tree removal
site.
i. a copy of any applicable federal or provincial approvals, including a Bird
Nesting Survey if removing trees between March 15 and August 1 as per
provincial Wildlife Act regulations;
Watercourse Protection Areas:
j. Every application for tree Removal on a property that is within 50 metres or
contains any part of a watercourse may be required to provide a survey that
identifies Top-of-Bank, prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 11
Areas to be Clear Cut:
Every application for tree Removals that will clear and grub an area of 100 square meters or
more may require, at the Applicant’s expense, one or more of the following:
k. Erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a qualified professional to
address bare and exposed soil; a plan for stabilization of exposed soils once
the work is complete;
l. Blowdown risk assessment, if a new forest edge will be created, prepared by
a Qualified Professional, at the applicant’s expense, to assess the risk of
blowdown and recommend appropriate mitigation measures
m. Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by a Qualified Professional Engineer,
to address drainage and to avoid negative stormwater impacts to adjacent
properties
n. Retention of trees within 5 metres of property boundary where a new forest
edge would be created along the adjacent property in order to minimize
blowdown damage on adjacent property
o. Hydrological Assessment by a Qualified Hydrological Professional if the
clearing is to take place over a vulnerable aquifer, to address impacts to the
groundwater
Steep slopes and Geotechnical Protection Areas:
p. Every application for tree Removal on a steep slope (25% or greater), and/or
within a Geotechnical Covenant, may require a report prepared by a qualified
geotechnical engineer that certifies that the proposed tree Removal will not
create increased flooding, erosion, or landslip caused by stormwater runoff
directed from the tree removal site.
Hazard Tree
q. Application for the Removal of a Hazard Tree may require a report prepared by
a certified Tree Risk Assessor; no fee required for the application.
r. A Tree Permit may be revoked by the Manager of Development and
Environmental Services or designate if the terms and conditions of the permit
have been breached or the information supplied by the applicant is
determined to be inaccurate, incomplete or erroneous.
9. Tree Removal
Where Cutting or Removal of trees has been authorized by the City, and a valid and
subsisting permit exists, the person undertaking the cutting or removal must:
a. dispose of the tree parts in a manner approved by the City and in accordance
with provincial and City regulations;
b. keep the Drainage System free of Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge
originating from the tree removal area, as per the Maple Ridge Watercourse
Protection Bylaw 6410-2006;
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 12
c. stabilize all bare and exposed soil by Oct. 15th of any given year in order to
reduce potential erosion impacts;
d. restrict all tree Removal work to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. every day
of the week except Sunday, when work is prohibited;
Areas to be Clear Cut:
e. conduct clear cutting tree Removals from August 1 to October 15th of any
given year, unless an erosion control plan prepared by a qualified professional
has been approved by the City and implemented prior to site disturbance; and
a bird nesting survey has been prepared and submitted by a Qualified
Professional if clearing between April 15 and August 1
Watercourse Protection Area:
f. when Cutting Hazard Trees, within the Watercourse Protection Area, leave the
larger pieces of such trees as Large Woody Debris and leave the cut tree
stump at a safe habitat height in order to retain fish and wildlife habitat
10. Replacement Trees
10.1 The applicant shall replace trees Cut and Removed under a Tree Cutting Permit if:
a) there are not more than 40 trees/ha (16 trees/acre) over 20 cm dbh remaining on
the parcel; and
b) trees being removed are over 50 cm dbh.
10.2 Replacements will be approved by the City Arborist as to species and location, as per
Schedule B, and in one or more of the following ways:
a) new trees planted on the same parcel in accordance with the
requirements set out and determined in Schedule “B”.
b) if it is not possible to plant on the same lot replacement trees that will
reach a healthy mature size, pay cash in lieu to the City in the amount of
$425 per replacement tree; not to exceed a total of $17,000 per hectare.
Replacement fees will be held in a Tree Fund that is designated for
planting trees and tree education within the City of Maple Ridge.
10.3 Replacement Trees become protected trees under this Bylaw, and cannot be removed
without a Permit, no matter what size.
10.4 The applicant shall replace all trees Cut and Removed within a Watercourse Protection
Area or on a Steep Slope (>25%); unless otherwise approved by the City.
10.5 Where the tree removals are a requirement of a rezoning, subdivision or building
permit, and are less than 50 cm dbh, the number of replacement trees required is not
less than 40 trees per hectare of developable area on the property. Trees greater than
50 cm dbh require replacements in a 4:1 ratio regardless of trees retained. Retained
trees outside of conservation areas will count as replacement trees in the same ratio
as trees removed.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 13
10.6 Replacement trees shall be of a size as listed in Schedule “B”; and of a condition and
structure as set out in the current BCLNA Landscape Standard.
10.7 Replacement trees shall not be planted within 3 meters of a building foundation wall
or within 1.5 metres of a property line.
10.8 Where no construction or site disturbance is proposed that would affect the planting
of replacement trees, the replacement trees must be planted within ninety (90) days
of the date of tree removal, or of the issuance of a Notice of Compliance from the City.
10.9 Where the planting of trees would hinder proposed construction or site disturbance or
where the survival of replacement trees would be in jeopardy with proposed
construction, the replacement trees must be planted within ninety (90) days of the
final occupancy approval of the last building being constructed that would jeopardize
the survival of the tree.
10.10 An Owner of Replacement trees shall maintain the same in accordance with the
current BCLNA Landscape Standard.
10.11 Prior to the issuance of a Subdivision, Development, Demolition, or Large Scale
Building Permit the Owner shall provide the City with a security deposit in the amount
of $425.00 per Replacement tree in cash or irrevocable letter of credit.
10.12 Individual residence properties do not require security, but will be fined if
replacements are not planted within 90 days.
10.13 The amount of security shall be held by the City for one year from the date the
replacement tree(s) are planted provided that the Manager of Development and
Environmental Services is satisfied that the Applicant has complied with the tree
replacement criteria.
10.14 If the Applicant has not complied with the tree replacement criteria as outlined in this
Bylaw, the City can use the security money to meet the replacement conditions as
specified in the Permit.
11. Tree Protection Requirements
11.1 Where the Critical Root Zone of any protected tree, either on the lot or on an adjacent
property is within 5 meters of any excavation, demolition, construction or engineering
works, the owner must install a tree protection barrier around the tree, in accordance
with Schedule “C”.
11.2 No demolition permit, building permit, or tree cutting permit shall be issued before
the tree protection barrier has been installed and approved by the Manager of
Development and Environmental Services or designate.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 14
11.3 No subdivision servicing works shall be permitted before the tree protection barrier
has been installed and approved by the Manager of Development and Environmental
Services or designate.
11.4 Tree protection barriers must remain in place and in accordance with Schedule “C”
until all construction is completed and given a final completion certificate or final
occupancy from the City.
11.5 Site disturbance within the tree protection zone is prohibited including, but not
limited to, site grading, deposition or storage of soil or any other material, disposal of
any toxic material, access by any equipment or vehicles, or use of the area as an
amenity space during construction.
11.6 Any work within a tree protection zone must be approved by the City Arborist and
supervised at all times by an independent Arborist.
11.7 With respect to development and building permits, the Applicant must protect all land
dedicated or transferred to the City, and all conservation lands on the property by
erecting a fence, as per the specifications in Schedule “C” around that dedicated or
transferred land prior to any development. The on-site clearing or removal of any
vegetation, the alteration of on-site grades, and the removal or deposition of soil from
or to this dedicated or transferred land is prohibited.
12. Tree Risk Assessments
12.1 Prior to any and all development, the Applicant must ensure that a Tree Risk
Assessment is completed at the Applicant’s sole cost to determine if there is
imminent danger of a tree, or any part of a tree within reach of the developable
parcel edge, falling and damaging the parcel or injuring individuals within the
developable acreage.
12.2 The Tree Risk Assessment must be prepared by an Arborist with a Tree Risk
Assessment Qualification and submitted to the City. All mitigation for risk of hazard
trees identified in the report must be addressed and confirmed prior to final approval
of a Subdivision Permit or issuance of a Building permit.
12.3 Once the Subdivision or Building is complete, a final Tree Risk Assessment for all
trees within striking distance of the new structures, or along all new forest edges
must be prepared by a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor and submitted to the City. All
mitigation recommended in the Tree Risk Assessment must be completed to be in
compliance with the Tree Permit conditions.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 15
13. Fees and Securities
13.1 An application for a permit must include the applicable fee as set out in the current
Maple Ridge Development Application Fees Bylaw, prior to the issuance of a permit.
13.2 When a tree has been cut or removed in violation of this Bylaw, the Owner, Applicant,
or person responsible for the cutting shall submit an Application and applicable fee,
plus a refundable security deposit in cash or letter of credit in the amount specified
on the Tree Cutting Permit or penalty notice. The amount of the security for the
provision, installation and maintenance of replacement trees required by this Bylaw
shall be $425 per tree to a maximum of $17,000 (40 trees) per hectare or
$100,000 per project.
13.3 The security will be returned once the replacement trees have been planted, inspected
and survived for one year. No interest shall be paid by the City on security deposits.
14. Administration and Enforcement
14.1 This bylaw will be administered by the Manager of Development and Environmental
Services or designate(s).
14.2 The Manager of Development and Environmental Services, the Environmental
Technician, the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and all City employees under their
direction will have the right at all reasonable hours to enter upon and inspect any
land or premises in the City to determine if the provisions of the Bylaw are being met.
15. Offense and Penalty
15.1 Every person who violates any provision of this Bylaw or who suffers or permits any
act or thing to be done in contravention of this Bylaw is guilty of an offence against
this Bylaw and is liable to the penalties hereby imposed.
15.2 Every person who commits an offence against this Bylaw is liable to a fine and
penalty as set out in the current Municipal Ticketing Information Bylaw; and not more
than $10,000.00 for each offence.
15.3 Where more than one tree is cut down, removed or damaged in violation of this bylaw
a separate offense is committed with respect to each tree.
15.4 Each day that a violation exists or continues shall constitute a separate offense.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 16
15.5 If the Tree Permit conditions or Tree Management Plan for a development related
Permit or land clearing is not followed, a Stop Work Order shall be posted on the site,
and no further work can take place on the property until the conditions of the Permit
are in compliance.
15.6 In addition, any owner who cuts, removes or damages, or suffers or permits any tree
to be cut, removed or damaged in contravention of this bylaw or in violation of any
terms and conditions of the permit will be required to submit a Tree Cutting Permit
for the trees removed or damaged and to replace trees on the same parcel in
accordance with Schedule “C”
15.7 If the owner fails or refuses to plant the required replacement trees as specified on
the Permit or in the Replacement Planting Criteria in Schedule “B”, within 90 (ninety)
days of receiving written direction from the City to do so, the City may use the security
collected to either have the trees planted onto the owner’s lot or to plant the trees on
City-owned property.
15.8 In the event that the owner of the lot fails to pay the costs of compliance before 31st
day of December in the year following that of compliance notice, the costs shall be
added to and form part of the taxes payable on the lot as taxes in arrears.
16. If any section or lesser portion of this Bylaw is held invalid, it will be severed and the
validity of the remaining provisions of this will not be affected.
17. Schedules “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F” attached to this Bylaw are incorporated
herein and form part of the bylaw.
READ a first time this day of , 2015.
READ a second time this day of , 2015.
READ a third time this day of , 2015.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2015.
MAYOR CLERK
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 17
City of Maple Ridge
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. XXXX-2015
SCHEDULE “A”
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 18
SCHEDULE “B”
Tree Replacement Criteria
The criteria below applies to the replacement of trees required under Section 10 of the City
of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 7133-2015.
Tree replacements are calculated on the basis of the 40 trees per hectare (16 Trees/acre)
being retained or replaced on site, in order to provide approximately 30% tree canopy cover.
Number:
Replacements shall be determined by number of trees remaining on lot and by size of tree
being removed. A minimum ratio of 40 trees per hectare (16 trees/acre) over 20 cm dbh
must be retained or new trees that will reach equal mature size must be replaced on the
property;
For each tree 20 – 50 cm dbh removed, 1 replacement that grows to equal mature
canopy size must be planted to a minimum of 40 trees per hectare (16 trees/acre).
If smaller canopy trees are better suited to the site, the ratio of removals to
replacements will be 2:1 to a minimum of 40 trees per hectare (16 trees/acre).
For each tree over 50 cm dbh removed, 4 replacements must be planted regardless
of tree being retained.
Species:
Replacement trees will be the same species as tree removed, or an alternate species as
proposed by the Applicant and approved by the City.
Size:
Non-development replacement trees shall be a minimum of 1.5 meter for coniferous and 4
cm dbh or 5 gallon pot for deciduous trees.
Development permit replacement trees shall be a minimum of 2 meter height for coniferous
and 5 cm caliper for deciduous trees.
Location and Spacing:
The location of replacement trees shall consider the mature space requirements for the
species, and proposed locations must be approved by the City Arborist.
Removal of hazard trees within a Watercourse Protection Area or on a Steep Slope (>25%)
will require replacements unless the City approves otherwise.
Newly planted trees must fit the BCLNS Landscape Standards for quality of plants, spacing
and installation.
Alternatives:
Should it not be possible or desirable to plant trees on the same parcel of land as where
they were removed, $425 cash in lieu per replacement tree must be paid to the City for
designated use of planting trees in the City to a maximum of 40 trees ($17,000) per hectare
Tree Replacements are NOT required for the following:
1. Hazard trees where Certified Arborist deems replacements not required due to
the extent of smaller tree growth that will fill in the canopy;
2. Dead trees
3. Trees below 20 cm dbh
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 19
SCHEDULE “C”
Tree Protection Specifications
Trees that are identified for protection through a Tree Permit require the following protection
measures to be implemented if any demolition, construction or change of land grade will
take place within 5 meters of the Critical Root Zone of the tree:
A protection barrier or temporary fence of at least 1.2 meters in height must be
placed around the Critical Root Zone of the tree. This barrier must be in place before
any excavation or construction work begins, and the barrier must remain intact
throughout the entire period of construction.
Specifications for Construction:
1. 1.2 m (~4’) height;
2. 2"x 4"s to be used for vertical posts, top and bottom rails and cross-bracing (in an "X");
round, un-treated vertical posts may be used with a minimum diameter of 9 cm;
3. Spacing between vertical posts to be a minimum of 3.7 m (12’) on center;
4. Structure must be sturdy with vertical posts driven firmly into the ground;
5. Continuous plastic mesh high visibility screening (e.g. orange snow fencing);
6. Posted with visible all weather signage advising that encroachment inside the protected
area is forbidden;
7. Located at a distance from the tree based on the calculation of its Critical Root Zone.
Protection barriers must be inspected by the Project Certified Arborist or the City Arborist,
before any work can begin.
The Protection Zone within the barrier fencing is off limits for all activity including storage,
dumping, parking and machinery operation.
Any required excavation in and around the Protection Zone must be indicated on the plan
and must be done by hand. (eg. underground servicing, footings, etc.) under the supervision
of a Certified Arborist. Grades within the Protection Zone must be maintained as original.
Re-grading outside the protection zone must not negatively affect the drainage or the health
of the retained trees. Trees within the Protection Zone must be adequately cared for
throughout the process.
If trees within the Protection Zone are damaged beyond repair, they will be replaced at the
Developer/Owner’s expense, in a ratio or 4:1.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 20
SCHEDULE “C” con’t
Tree Protection Specifications
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 21
SCHEDULE “D”
TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
For lands under development permit applications
And for lands undertaking clearing of more than 20 trees
Applicants with lands under a rezoning, subdivision, large scale building or development
permit application and lands that are proposed for removal of more than 20 trees greater
than 20 cm dbh must provide a comprehensive Tree Management Plan prepared by a
Certified Arborist and approved by the City before any removals begin. This Plan is required
to clarify the intent with respect to protection, management, replacement and hazard
assessment of trees that are on the site. One or more of the following will be required:
1. Tree Risk Assessment completed by a Certified Tree Risk Assessor to identify all trees
that are a potential hazard to proposed development during and after construction.
2. Fire Risk Assessment submitted to the Fire Chief in accordance with the Wildfire
Development Permit where applicable
3. Flood Impact Assessment as related to tree removals prepared by a professional
hydrologist, if the development is in the floodplain
4. Geotechnical Assessment for lands that have slopes over 15%, prepared by a
Qualified Geotechnical Engineer
5. Groundwater Impact Assessment as related to tree removals prepared by a Qualified
Hydrological Professional, if there will be significant clearing of trees over a
provincially designated vulnerable groundwater aquifer
6. Phased Clearing Plan, except for farm use, if there is a large area (over 0.4 ha) to be
cleared, or the area to be cleared has slopes over 15%, or the area to be cleared is
on a floodplain, in order to minimize the immediate impacts of clearing
7. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to be implemented on site prior to and after the
tree clearing
8. Tree Blowdown Assessment for clearing activity that will create a new forest edge on
or off the property; to address blowdown and mitigation including estimated tree
replacement costs, hazard tree topping, creation of wildlife trees if in conservation
area and retention of large woody debris within conservation lands;
9. Tree Survey to be prepared by a registered BC Land Surveyor. The Tree Survey shall
include all existing lot lines, rights-of-way, easements, Tops of Bank, water features,
spot elevations at base of trees proposed for retention, all existing trees and/or tree
stands, identification of significant trees and trees greater than 50 cm dbh; and
locations and types of trees over 20 cm dbh within 5 metres of adjacent properties
10. Identification of trees to be retained must demonstrate a best level of effort for
retention along perimeters of property and retention of significant trees (>50 cm dbh)
This shall include a complete description of retained and newly planted trees shown
on the Tree Management Plan, including the names (common and botanical names),
locations, quantities, caliper sizes of newly planted trees, and the dripline for each
retained tree.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 22
11. Conceptual development layout, including proposed elevations, proposed location of
all underground servicing, buildings, driveways, parking areas, landscaped areas,
roadways, and detention/ siltation ponds
12. Tree protection plan that describes how trees will be protected and monitored during
construction, including placement of protection fencing
13. Replacement planting plan to match requirements as per Schedule “B”. Trees to be
retained count as replacement trees if they are not in conservation areas. Size of
retained tree determines how many replacement trees it equals, as per the following:
DBH* of trees to be retained Replacement Credits
20 cm - 30 cm 1 tree
30 cm – 50 cm 3 trees
More than 50 cm 4 trees
14. Monitoring Schedule for tree retention and planting on the site during and after the
construction. This will include a letter from the Developer that they agree to retain
the Certified Arborist as a monitor to ensure proper protection measures and planting
quality, and tree maintenance takes place until the end of the maintenance period
for the trees. Monitors may be requested by the City to report on issues that arise on
site throughout the construction phases.
15. Calculation of security amount on the planted and retained trees, to be paid by
developer. Each tree to be planted or retained requires $425 security per tree; not to
exceed a total of $17,000 per hectare or $100,000 for the entire application. This
security will be returned one year after the trees have been planted by the Applicant
with the submission of a Certified Arborist report assuring the healthy condition of the
trees. This report will be reviewed and approved by the City Manager of Development
and Environmental Services before release of security.
All protection and mitigation measures must be in place and inspected and reported
by the Certified Arborist, and submitted to and approved by the City, before any
development work can begin on site.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 23
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. XXX-2015
SCHEDULE “E”
Application for Tree Removal
1. Full name(s) and address of applicant:
Postal Code: Telephone: or
2. Full name(s) and address of owner (if different than applicant):
Postal Code: Telephone:
email: _____________________
A signed consent form from the Owner must accompany this application if applicant
and owner are not the same.
3. Full name(s) and address of tree cutting company:
Telephone: email:
4. Property proposed for tree removal:
Street Address:
Legal Description:
5. Purpose of proposed tree removal:
Attach Tree Risk Assessment for hazardous trees as required under Section 7.10.a)
of the bylaw
6. Number and Species of trees to be cut:
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 24
7. Drainage and erosion control methods to minimize impacts to adjacent lands or to
nearby watercourses from the tree removal site:
Attach erosion control plan as required under Section 8 (l) of the bylaw
Attach geotechnical report as required under Section 8 (m) of the bylaw
8. Methods proposed to restore the site to a suitable condition, including appropriate
disposal of wood waste and stabilization of bare and exposed soil:
9. If trees to be removed are not affiliated with a Subdivision or Large Scale Building
Permit, then attach a dimensional sketch of the property which shows the location
of the trees to be cut or removed, the trees to be protected, barrier fencing, the
location and species of any required replacement trees, topographic and
hydrological features, structures, roads and other information useful in
determining location.
10. A Tree Management Plan must accompany this application if tree removals are in
conjunction with a rezoning, subdivision, development or large scale building
permit application, or part of clearing more than 0.4 ha.
Note: Applications for a permit shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee as set out in
the current Maple Ridge Development Application Fees Bylaw.
I HEREBY DECLARE that the above information is correct, and that I have read a copy of the
City of Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 and that I will abide by all the
applicable provisions of the said bylaw and such terms and conditions as may form part of
any Tree Removal Permit issued pursuant to this application.
I understand that I may be required to provide a security deposit as required by this bylaw to
guarantee the provision and maintenance of all Replacement trees in accordance with
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015.
Name of Applicant(s):
Signature of Applicant(s):
Date:
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 25
City of Maple Ridge
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE “F”
Tree Cutting Permit
Tree Cutting Permit 20XX-XXX-TC
This permit is issued pursuant to City of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 7133-2015.
This permit applies only to those lands legally described as (legal land description), (the
“Lands”) Civic Address:
This permit is issued to: Applicant’s name (the “Permittee”)
This permit authorizes the Permittee to cut and remove only the trees in those areas on the
Lands shown and described on Schedule A of this Permit subject to the terms and
conditions hereinafter set out:
1. This permit is issued with the understanding that these lands are under a Subdivision
Application, and that the lands will be substantially developed by (month, year).
2. Any tree authorized to be cut or removed by the Permit shall only be cut or removed
in strict compliance with the City of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 7133-
2015 and permit application dated
3. Any hazard tree authorized to be cut or removed by the Permit shall only be cut or
removed in strict compliance with MoWLAP “Hazard Tree Management –
Environmental Stewardship Standards and Recommended Best Practices – Instream
Works Type No. 15.
4. Any tree authorized to be cut or removed by the Permit shall only be cut or removed
in strict compliance with International Society of Arboriculture Best Management
Practices.
5. Compliance with Provincial Wildlife Act regarding any protected nesting trees; any
tree with active wildlife nesting cannot be removed until the nesting is complete or
the Applicant has received a Permit from the Provincial Ministry of Environment to
allow removal.
6. Tree Replacement consistent with Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw Schedule B.
Replacement details and planting plan attached as Schedule B
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Page 26
7.Hazard trees in conservation areas will be felled into the riparian area and their
trunks, limbs and greenery left to provide food nutrients and cover for fish and
wildlife habitats. They will be placed so that they do not cause future drainage
obstructions. Wildlife snags to be left standing as per Arborist Report;
8.Sediment and erosion control and other deleterious spill/discharge prevention
requirements as per ESC plan attached;
9.Access mitigation requirements must ensure safety on all public roadways and other
public lands adjacent to this property;
10. All tree alteration or removal activities must either be conducted by or supervised by
an appropriately qualified professional, namely:
11. Once the proposed tree removals and/or cutting are complete, the applicant must
notify the Environmental Technician to verify that work completed is within this
Permit guidelines.
12. A sign displaying Permit Number and date must be displayed at the entrance to the
site 24 hours before tree work begins and while tree work is in progress.
13. The authorization herein to cut or remove trees expires and is of no further force or
effect one year after the date of the issuance of this Permit. Any proposed extension
of this permit may be considered at the end of this period.
This Tree Cutting Permit is issued on and shall expire in one year on .
Any proposed changes to the Permit must be approved by the City of Maple Ridge.
_____________________________________________
Manager of Development and Environmental Services
May 27, 2015
Dear Mayors and Regional District Chairs:
As we prepare for the upcoming 2015 UBCM Convention in Vancouver this September, I
wanted to let you know that my caucus colleagues and I are once again looking forward to
listening to the discussions around the issues and initiatives that affect British Columbia’s
communities and the people who live there. Our work depends on your input and your
insight, and my colleagues and I will be there to listen and to learn about your priorities.
The theme this year, Excellence in Action, is a wonderful way to recognize the successful
track we have worked on together to build our province, to highlight our strengths and to
lead the way to securing a future for British Columbians today and for many years to come.
If you would like to request a meeting with me or a Cabinet Minister on a specific issue
during this year’s convention, the online registration form at https://UBCMreg.gov.bc.ca
will go live on June 15th. The invitation code is MeetingRequest2015 and it is case sensitive.
It’ll be great to see you at the UBCM Convention. If you have any questions, please contact
my UBCM Meeting Request Coordinator, Tim Wong, via his email address which is:
UBCM.Meetings@gov.bc.ca or by phone at 604-775-1600.
Sincerely,
Christy Clark
Premier
6.1