The City of Ottawa can now authorize the removal of municipal trees that cause, or are likely to cause, serious damage to private property.
Last week, city council approved an amendment to the municipal trees and natural areas protection bylaw that allows the city to remove a healthy tree if it threatens damage to private property.
The removal of a municipal tree will be approved as a last resort to prevent damage to the property.
City-owned trees are those located along streets and in parks, woodlots, ravines and community forests.
The previous bylaw only allowed the city to remove diseased, dangerous or dead trees that caused damage.
It did not permit to remove healthy city trees that led to the same problems.
At an environment committee meeting on Jan. 17, Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes voiced concerns about the change.
“We are losing the large trees. We are losing the shade. We are losing the capacity for people to be spending less money on heating and cooling,” she said.
The change could increase tree removal requests because property owners might anticipate future property damage, she said.
Council directed city staff to provide an annual report outlining the results from the amendment. Mayor Jim Watson told councillors the policy might have to be revisited if the report shows a large increase in tree removal.
Some residents are concerned about the effect the change to the bylaw will have on green space in the city.
Bonne Mabee, chair of the Centretown Citizens Community Association’s trees and green space committee, says Centretown already has a limited amount of green space.
“The fact that a homeowner can say that it will likely destroy my foundation in the future,” she says. “That is the problem.”
Overdevelopment is leading to a lack of green space, she says.
“They take down a little house and put in three townhouses. And the new condo goes right to the sidewalk.”
Centretown needs about 25 more acres of green space to match the green-space-per population that exists in other areas of the city, Mabee explains.
David Barkley, the city’s manager of forestry services, told council that the removal of trees depends on each property and homeowners have to act responsibly.
“There’s still an onus on them to provide the city with material to prove that there is sensitive soil, that they have damage, that there is cause for concern,” he said.
If a tree is harming city infrastructure such as sewers, sidewalks or storm drains, the city will work with forestry staff to decide if the tree should be removed. They will determine whether it is the tree causing the damage or other factors such as the age of the infrastructure, Barkley said.
“We want to determine what we can do and what our next steps would be before we remove the trees or before we recommend repairing a pipe,” he said.
A four-phase assessment is part of the process. An inspector meets with the property owner to assess the damage to the property. Among other things, inspectors will confirm it is a city tree, test soil conditions and discuss removal options with the owner.
The previous bylaw did not allow the city to remove healthy trees, even if it was causing damage.
Since 2006, six main cases were filed against the city where homeowners claimed trees were damaging their property. The city spent $856,000 on legal fees and damage costs associated with settling those cases.
That money could have purchased 2,000 to 3,000 trees for the city, Barkley said.