HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-23 - Climate Change and Environment Committee Agenda
Climate Change and Environment Committee
Agenda
Thursday March23, 2023
Kitchener City Hall
4:00p.m. -6:00p.m.
200 King St.W.
th
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 City Hall, 5Floor, Adams-Seymour Room A & B
Page 1 Chair –Brooklin Wallis Vice-Chair – Morgan Garner
Commencement
The meeting will begin with a Land Acknowledgement given by the Chair.
The City of Kitchener is situated on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee Peoples.
We recognize our responsibility to serve as stewards for the land and honour the original caretakers who came before us.
Our community is enriched by the enduring knowledge and deep-rooted traditions of the diverse First Nations, Metis and
Inuit in Kitchener today.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
Members of Council and members of the City’s citizen advisory committees are required to file a written statement when
they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written form.
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of 5 minutes.
None
Discussion Items
1. Tree Conservation Review Update (30 min)
Adam Buitendyk, Forestry Project Manager, Forestry and Natural Areas Management, Infrastructure
Services, City of Kitchener
Gaurang Khandelwal, Planner (Policy), Planning Division, Development Services, City of Kitchener
Carrie Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Division, Development Services, City of
Kitchener
Barbara Steiner, Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Division, Development Services, City of Kitchener
2. DTK Vision (30 min)
Natalie Goss, Policy and Research, Planning Division, Development Services, City of Kitchener
3. CorCAP 2.0 (30 min)
Anna Marie Cipriani, Corporate Sustainability Officer, Development Services, City of Kitchener
Information Items
Key decisions of Kitchener Council: Feb. 27, 2023
Minutes to be approved by Chair at agenda setting meetings going forward
Committee Administrator
Shannon Lodenquai
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1866-969-9994 **
REPORT TO:Climate Change and Environment CommitteeChoose a
meeting type
DATE OF MEETING:March 23, 2023
SUBMITTED BY:Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy and Research
Joshua Shea, Manager, Forestry & Natural Areas Management
PREPARED BY:Gaurang Khandelwal,Planner (Policy), 519-741-2200 ext. 7611
WARD(S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:March 14, 2023
REPORT NO.:NA
SUBJECT:Tree Conservation Processes Review
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Climate Change and EnvironmentCommittee support staff taking a report to
th
the April 24Committee of Council outlining existing tree conservation processes
that conserve, manage and/or regulate public and private trees in Kitcheneras well
asinother relevantmunicipalities; and,
Thatthe Climate Change and EnvironmentCommittee support initiating a second
phase of the Tree Conservation Processes Review that includesconsideration of
specific enhancement opportunitiesto existing tools and processes.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to outlinefindings from areview of tree conservation
processes existing in Kitchener;findings from a scan of processes fromotherselect
municipalities;and,discussion points for potential directionsfor asecond phase of the
project.
The key findingsof this report are:
o Kitchener currently utilizes alltoolsavailableand has various mechanisms and
processes in place that are deployed to varying degrees in order to support tree
conservation.
o 72% of
Heritage Conservation land use designation in the Official Plan and/or the NHC-1
zone in the Zoning By-
Conservation By-law (woodlands 1 hectare in size or greater), the Kitchener Tree
By-law (trees on City property), and/or the Kitchener Tree Conservation By-law
(trees on private properties 1 acre in size or greater).
o 28ulated and therefore
vulnerable to removals from private property, or from properties owned by other
public agencies.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1 - 1
o
and approaches-perhaps to even greater effect than elsewhere.
o
permitting process or orders/charges for public tree injury or removal; private tree
by-law considers the size of property and the size of the tree; tree
replacement/compensation is based on tree value; and, staff resourcing.
o There is opportunity for improvement
processes, and a second phase of the projectthat explores updates t
existing tree conservation processes.
There are no financial implicationsarisingfrom this report. Financial implications of
poten
explored as part of Phase 2.
This report supports Environmental Leadership.
BACKGROUND:
In 2015, Kitchener had an urban forest canopy of around 26% or 3,474 hectares of canopy
cover. This was remeasured in 2019 and the urban forest canopy increased to 27% or
around 3,615 hectares of canopy, one of the highest percentages of tree cover among urban
Ontario municipalities.
On January 10, 2022 staff presented report INS-2022-002 Tree Canopy Target for Kitchener
to Council recommending approval of a tree canopy target of 30 percent for each ward by
2050 and an overall City-wide tree canopy target of 33 percent by 2070.
to initiate a review of existing tree conservation processes inthe City with an intention to
extend and strengthen tree conservation measures, including:
a review of the existing bylaws and processes, including the Kitchener Tree Bylawand
the Kitchener Tree Conservation Bylaw;
a review of requirements for tree planting contained within the Development Manual;
a review of the Tree Management Policyand any relevant policies as required; and,
a jurisdictional scan of other municipal tree conservation processes, policies and
bylaws.
Staff has undertakenareview of the tree conservation processesin Kitchener and other
select municipalitiesand is in the process of finalizing thebackground findings (Phase 1)
andpossible directions for new or amended policies/regulations/implementation processes
(Phase 2).
On February 16, 2023 staff presented background information from the tree conservation
processes review toCCEC, and indicated a subsequentpresentationof the background
review with an opportunity for CCECto review the findings and provide feedback to staff.
The purpose of this report is to present findings from the Tree Conservation Processes
Discussion Paperand obtain support for initiating a second phase of the project.
1 - 2
REPORT:
Tree Conservation Processes Review Discussion Paper:
The Tree Conservation Processes Review Discussion Paper outlinesthe current approach
to tree conservation and management in Kitchener, and the findings from a scan of
processes and tools from select municipalities.
Key highlights of the Discussion Paper are:
approximately 3,615 hectares or 27.12% of its
land base.
72
Heritage Conservation land use designation in the Official Plan and/or the NHC-1
zone in the Zoning By-
Conservation By-law (woodlands 1 hectare in size or greater), the Kitchener Tree By-
law (trees on City property), and/or the Kitchener Tree Conservation By-law (trees on
private properties 1 acre in size or greater).
28
vulnerable to removals from private property, or from properties owned by other
public agencies.
Current approach to tree conservation in Kitchener
Kitchener uses all tools available for tree conservation such as the Kitchener Tree
Bylaw(public trees), the Kitchener Tree Conservation Bylaw(private trees), Tree
Management Policy(development applications), and the Development Manual
(requirements for tree planting).
These tools have worked well for Kitchener in the past, regulating trees and providing
opportunities for conservation and mitigation through development review processes.
other jurisdictionswhen compared to Kitchener
A scan of other munisuggest that Kitchener is using similar tools
and approaches-perhaps to even greater effect than elsewhere.
-law (public trees) does not have a permitting process in place,
while some municipalities do.
-law (public trees) does not enable making orders to cease or
correct contravention of any provision of the by-law.
The application of private tree by-laws differs from municipality to municipalityand is
largely based on themunicipali.Most
municipalities apply their private tree by-laws based on only size of the tree,
irrespective of size of the property.Kitchener uses a combination of size of tree (tree
equal to or greater than 10 cm diameter at breast height) and size of the property
(property equal to or larger than 1 acre).
Tree replacement/compensation in Kitchener is based on value of the tree to be
removed. Some municipalities have specified tree replacement ratios based on the
size of the tree, while others have used different approaches for determining tree
monetary value and replacement costs and the overall compensation value.
1 - 3
Kitchener does not outline a process to appeal treepermit applications, while some
municipalities do.
Additional learnings
The extent and success of tree regulation on public and private properties is closely
linked to staff resources available to implement these regulations.
Education of stakeholders andclearcommunication around tree conservation and
management processesis key for success of tree conservation.
There are advantages of forestry staffbeingable to directly enforce by-laws, including
the ability to issue orders and penalties.
There are benefits of having tree care professionals working on trees to be licensed
with the municipality.
Adopting an iterative process which monitors tree canopy changes in relation totree
permits and development applications, andestablishing anotification procedure
which records tree removalswhere injury or destruction of a tree does not require a
permit ordevelopment application aids inmaking informed updates to processes.
Incentive programs providing financial support to public for maintaining and retaining
trees on private properties has its advantages.
There are concerns around a lack of process and repercussionagainst property
owners who remove treesbeforesubmitting a formal development application.
Potential Direction for Phase 2:
The review of tree conservation processes in Kitchener and other municipalities (Phase 1)
has highlighted the need and opportunity for improvement (potential directions for Phase 2
of this project). staff continue to support a
measured approach to balance staff resources while considering an adequate level of
protection (the 28% of the tree canopy cover that is not protected and how development
would impact this).Phase 2 work will include these metrics for evaluation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports Environmental Leadership.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. Potential
budget and will be explored as part of Phase 2.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM This report will be
CCECmeeting.
CONSULT The findings of the review of tree conservation processes is being presented
to the CCEC for input on potential direction for phase 2 of the project.
1 - 4
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
INS-2022-002 Tree Canopy Target for Kitchener
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Draft Discussion Paper-Tree Conservation Processes Review
1 - 5
Tree Conservation Processes Review
Discussion Paper
1 - 6
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
In 2015, Kitchener had an urban forest canopy of around 26% or 3,474 hectares of canopy
cover. This was remeasured in 2019 and the urban forest canopyincreased to 27% or
around 3,615 hectares of canopy, one of the highest percentages of tree cover among
urban Ontario municipalities.
On January 10, 2022 staff presented report INS-2022-002 Tree Canopy Target for
Kitchenerto Council recommending approval of a tree canopy target of 30 percent for
each ward by 2050 and an overall City-wide tree canopy target of 33 percent by 2070.
Council considered the matter,recommendation and further directing
staff to initiate a review of existing tree conservation processes in the City with an intention
to extend and strengthen tree conservation measures,including:a review of the existing
bylaws and processes, including the Kitchener Tree By-lawand the Kitchener Tree
Conservation By-law;a review of requirements for tree planting contained within the
Development Manual;a review of the Tree Management Policyand any relevant policies
asrequired; and,a jurisdictional scan of other municipal tree conservation processes,
policies and bylaws.
ThisDiscussion Paper outlines the current approach to tree conservation and
management in Kitchener, and in otherselectmunicipalities. Key findings from the review
are:
Kitchener currently utilizes all tools available and has various mechanisms and
processes in place that are deployed to varying degrees in order to support tree
conservation.
72%tree canopy is collectively protected through the
Natural Heritage Conservation land use designation in the Official Plan and/or the
NHC-1 zone in the ZoningBy-
Woodland Conservation By-law (woodlands 1 hectare in size or greater), the
Kitchener Tree By-law (trees on City property), and/or the Kitchener Tree
Conservation By-law (trees on private properties 1 acre in size or greater).
i
1 - 7
This means that 28ated and
therefore vulnerable to removals from private property, or from properties owned
by other public agencies.
A scan of other practices reveals thatKitchener is using similar tools
andapproaches-perhaps to even greater effect than elsewhere.
currentapproach, compared to other municipalities,differs with
respect to application of thetools.
o Kitchener currently does not have a permitting process in place for injury
and destruction of public trees while some other municipalities do.
o-law (public trees) does not enable making orders to
cease or correct a contravention of any provision of the by-law.
o Kitchener uses a combination of size of tree (tree equal to or greater than
10 cm diameter at breast height) and size of the property (property equal to
or larger than 1 acre)to apply itsprivate tree by-law,whereasmost
municipalities apply their private tree by-laws based on only size of the tree.
o Tree replacementor compensationin Kitchener is based on value of the
tree(s)to be destroyed, whilesomemunicipalities have specifiedtree
replacement ratios based on the size of the treeandsome others have used
differentapproaches for determining tree monetary value and replacement
costs and the overall compensation value.
o Kitchener does notlay out an appeal process for tree permit applications,
while some municipalities do.
There areadditionallearnings fromother municipalities.
o The extent and success of tree regulation on public and private properties
is closely linked to staffresources available witha municipality to implement
these regulations.
o Education and communication with public and professionals is keyfor
success of tree conservation.
o There are advantages of foresters to be able to enforce by-laws, including
the ability to issue orders and penalties.
ii
1 - 8
o Monitoring changes in tree canopy tree permits and development
applications, and benefits in establishingnotification procedures where
injury or destruction of a tree does not require a permit or development
applicationis helpful in making informed updates to processes.
o There are benefits for having professionals working on trees to be licensed
with the municipality.
o Incentive programs providing financial support to public for maintaining and
retaining trees on private properties has its advantages.
o There are concerns around a lack of process and repercussion against
property owners who remove trees before submitting a formal development
application.
The review of tree conservation processes in Kitchener and other municipalities has
highlighted the opportunity to improve processes. A second
phase of the project to further explore opportunities to enhanceKitchenerree
conservation tools, shouldbe undertaken to strengthen and extend existing measures.
Updatesto existing tree conservation processes should be based on a measured
approach to balance staff resources andadequate level of treeprotection.
iii
1 - 9
C ONTENTS
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................i
1Introduction and Background....................................................................................1
2Existing Direction and Approach to Tree Conservation and Management................4
2.1Provincial Direction............................................................................................4
2.2Regional Direction..............................................................................................8
2.3Current Approach at City of Kitchener..............................................................10
3Tree Conservation and Management Jurisdictional Scan.......................................17
3.1Shortlisting Municipalities.................................................................................17
3.2Research and Analysis....................................................................................18
4Conclusion..............................................................................................................39
Glossary........................................................................................................................40
References....................................................................................................................42
Appendices
1 - 10
1I NTRODUCTIONAND B ACKGROUND
Trees are the most visible part of the urban forest and there is growing recognition of the
immense social, economic, and environmental benefits that trees provide to a community.
The benefits trees provide is directly related to the quantity and quality of
canopyinKitch
Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy(City of Kitchener, 2019).
Figure 1. 10ways trees help us
In 2019,the City of Kitchenetree canopy covered3,615 hectares or 27.2
percent of Citybase.Of thistree canopy 48% wason public property(including
lands owned by the Cityand other public agencies)while 50% wason private property.
Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of private and publictree canopy ownership in each of
the 10 wards in the City, indicating an important role for both public and private
landowners in maintaining and conserving the existing treecanopy(City of Kitchener,
2021).
Figure 2. Private and Public Tree Ownership in the 10 wards of the City
1
1 - 11
Direction to set a tree canopy target -2022,
andKitSustainable Urban Forest Strategy.
On January 10, 2022 staff presented report INS-2022-002 Tree Canopy Target for
Kitchenerto Council recommending approval of a tree canopy target of 30 percent for
each ward by 2050 and an overall City-wide tree canopy target of 33 percent by 2070.
Council considered the matter and passed the followingresolution:
"That a tree canopy target of 30% per cent by 2050 be established for each of the
10Wards in the City of Kitchener together with an overall Citywide canopy target
of 33% per cent by 2070, as outlined in Infrastructure Services Department report
INS-2022-002, and,
That staff be directed to develop ward (and where appropriate, neighborhoods),
specific action plans that focus on planting, maintaining and protecting trees in
consideration of local pressures on canopy and,
That these action plansinform future budget requests beginning in 2022 for the
2023 financial year; and,
That staff bedirected to initiate a review of existing tree conservation processes in
the City, including:
A review of the existing by-laws and processes, including the Kitchener Tree
Conservation By-law
Review of requirements for tree planting contained within the Development
Manual
Reviewing the Tree Management Policy and any relevantpolicies as
required
Undertake a jurisdictional scan of other municipal tree conservation
processes, policies and by-laws
With an intention to extend and strengthen tree conservation measures, and report
back to Council with preliminary findings by the end of 2022, and further,
2
1 - 12
That staff report back in 2025 and on five-yearly intervalsthereafter, with an update
ew on whether the
tree canopy target can be increased to 33% per cent by 2050 be established for
each of the 10 Wards in the City of Kitchener together with an overallCity-wide
canopy target of 38% per cent by 2070."
This discussion paperprovides a reviewof existing processes with respect to tree
conservation and management for the City of Kitchener, and a jurisdictional scanof other
municipal tree conservation processes, policies and by-laws.
The discussion paper is structured into the following four sections:
Section 1: Introductionand Background
Section 2: Existing Direction and Approachto Tree Conservation and Management
Section 3: Tree Conservation and Management Jurisdictional Scan
Section 4: Conclusion
3
1 - 13
2E XISTING D IRECTION AND A PPROACHTO T REE C ONSERVATION AND
M ANAGEMENT
In Ontario, each municipality is given powers and duties under the Municipal Actand
several other Acts for the purpose of providing good governance with respect to matters
within their jurisdiction. Further, upper-tier governments adopt policies,by-lawsand
processes thatprovideadditionaldirection to lower-tier municipalities forvarious matters.
This section summarizes the provincial and regional directionfor tree conservation and
management applicable to the Cityof Kitchener andprovides an overview ofthe current
approach totree conservation and management in the City, including public and private
trees.
2.1P ROVINCIAL D IRECTION
There are several Acts and policy documents that provide direction to municipalities on
matter of conservation and managementof trees and woodlands, some specifically
provide for the regulation of trees while others areassociated with trees.
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
The Municipal Actgives the responsibility to municipalities toensure laws and plans are
in placeto protectthe natural environment. This includes, under Section 135, the power
to pass tree by-laws that regulate or prohibit the injuring or destruction of trees.Section
135 (12) of the Act provides statutory exemptions for by-laws passed underSection135.
Further, Section 270 of the Municipal Act requires municipalities to adopt and maintain
policies with respect to the manner in which the municipality will protect and enhance the
tree canopy and natural vegetation in the municipality.
Forestry Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. F.26
The Forestry Act allows the Minister of Northern Development, Natural Resources and
Forestry to establish programs to protect, manage or establish woodlands and to
encourage forestry that is consistent with good forestry practices. TheForestry Actallows
municipalities to pass by-laws and enter into agreements for the purposes of forestry
4
1 - 14
activities and reforestation on lands that are either owned by that municipality or are the
subject of such an agreement. It provides powersof entry to inspect trees and forest
products for infestation, as well as survey timber and natural resources. The Forestry Act
also defines what a boundary tree is and provides details on when trees are considered
common property and stipulates that every personwho injures or destroys a boundary
tree without consent is guilty of an offence under the Act.
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
The Planning Actsets out ground rules of land use planning inOntario and describes how
land uses may be controlled, and who may control them. It provides the basis for
considering provincial interests under Section 2 such as the protection of ecological
systems and conservation and management of natural resources. Further, it provides for
various tools to be at the disposal of municipalities, such as Official Plans,Zoning By-
laws,Site Plan Control,and Plans of Subdivision.
Section 16 of the Planning Actgives municipalities the power to establish goals,
objectives and policies through Official Plans to manage and direct physical change and
their effects on the social, economic, built and natural environment of the municipality or
part of it.
Section 34 of the PlanningActprovides the basis for regulating and controlling land uses
in municipalities through Zoning By-laws. Zoning By-laws put the Official Plan into effect
and provide for its day-to-day administration, containing specific requirements that are
legally enforceable. Zoning By-laws may prohibit any use of land and the erecting,
locating or using of any buildings or structures within woodlands, among other natural
features and areas.
Under Section 41 of the Planning Actmunicipalities are allowed to designate site plan
control areas to achieve high quality site design, appropriate siting and massing of
development on a site, and to ensure safety, accessibility, attractiveness and compatibility
of a development with the site context and overall urban landscape. Municipalities have
the authority to approve site plans if sufficient consideration is given to woodland buffers,
and trees for landscaping and protecting adjoining lands, including highways. As a
5
1 - 15
condition to approval of site plans, a municipality may require the owner of the land to
enter into one or more agreements to ensurethe development proceeds in accordance
with the plans and drawings approved.Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act now exempts
development with 10 residential units or less from site plan control.
Part VI of the Planning Actprovides for subdivision of land. Aregistered plan of
subdivisioncreates new, separate parcels of land which can be legally used for the sale
of lots. Plans of subdivision are required to have regard to the provisions of the Planning
Actand related policiesand plans. Municipalities may impose conditions to the approval
of a plan of subdivision, including the owner of subject lands to enter into agreements
which may be registered against the land to which it applies.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act,
providespolicy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and
development. It gives provincial policy direction tohelp build strong, healthy communities
in Ontario;protheritage(such as wetlands and woodlands),
water, agricultural, mineral, cultural heritage (such as structures and landscapes) and
archaeological resources; and protect communities through directing development away
from areas ofnatural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to
public health or safety, or property damage.
PPS prohibits development and site alteration in significant wetlands and significant
coastal wetlands, and in significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife
habitat, significant areas of natural and scientific interest and coastal wetlands unless it
has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts. Development and site
alteration isalso not permitted on lands adjacent to the natural heritage features and
areas unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has
been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on
theirecological functions.
Planning authorities are also required to support energy conservation and efficiency,
improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and preparing for the impacts
6
1 - 16
of a changing climate through land use and development patterns which maximize
vegetation within settlement areas, where feasible.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
ugh the
Places to Grow Act 2005, that builds upon the policy foundation ofthe PPS to plan for
growthand development inthe Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
Policies of the Growth Plan support integration of green infrastructure, including
components suchas street trees and urban forests, in achieving complete communities
andprotection of the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan, outside of the
settlement areas. Within settlement areas, the Growth Plan enables municipalities to
protect the naturalheritage features and areas in a manner that is consistent with the
PPS.
Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27
The Conservation Authorities Actprovides for the organization and delivery of programs
and services that further the conservation,restoration, developmentand management of
natural resources in watersheds in Ontario.TheAct enablesestablishment of
conservation authoritiesin Ontario, including the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Section 21 lends the authoritiesvarious powers to accomplish its objectives.It includes,
among other matters, the power to enter into agreements with owners of private lands to
facilitate the due carrying out of any project and to plant and produce trees on lands with
the consent of the owner for any purpose.
Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Actsets out prohibited activities that include
development in areas that could be unsafe for development because of natural processes
associated with flooding or erosion, and interference with, or alterations to, watercourses,
wetlands or shorelines.
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18
The Ontario Heritage Actallows municipalities to designate individual properties and
districts as being of cultural heritage value or interest. Part IV allows for designation of
7
1 - 17
heritage properties and Part V allows for designation of heritage conservation districts.
Tree(s) can beidentified as a heritage attribute of a property designated under Part IV or
as a heritage attribute within a heritage conservation district designated under Part V of
the Ontario Heritage Act.
Invasive Species Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 22
The Invasive Species Actprohibits the possession, transport, release, or propagation of
invasive species within Ontario. Ontario Regulation 354/16 lists prohibited and restricted
invasive species, as per subsection 4(2) of the Act. There are presently no woodyplants
listed in O. Reg. 354/16.
2.2R EGIONAL D IRECTION
The Regional Municipalityof Waterloo builds on provincial direction and implements, in
relation to tree conservation and management, theRegional Official Plan and the
Conservation of Trees in WoodlandsBy-law.
Regionof WaterlooOfficial Plan
The Region of Waterloo Official Plan (the ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on
June 16, 2009. The ROP was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
in December2010 and came into full effect in June 2015following its appeal.
The ROP incorporates the policy and regulatory framework established by the Province
andcontains goals, objectives and policies to manage and direct land use change and its
effects on thecultural, social, economicand natural environment within Waterloo Region.
Area Municipal Plans, including the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and all land use related
by-laws and future development is required to conformto the ROP.
Policies in the ROP direct the Region and/or the Area Municipalities to ensure that
development occurring within the Urban Areaand Urban Designated Greenfield Areais
planned and developed in a manner that protects the natural environment.It also supports
improved air qualitythrough opportunities for increasing forestcover throughout the
region t
land area.
8
1 - 18
The ROP establishes a Greenlands Network in the regionwhich is a layered approach to
environmental protectioncomprised of Landscape Level Systems, Core Environmental
Features, Fish Habitat,Supporting Environmental Featuresand the linkages among
these elements. Policies relating to the Greenlands Networkfocus on protecting and
enhancing the ecological integrity and functions of these landscapes. Significant
woodlands are identified as Core Environmental Features and defined as areas that meet
the criteria of: (a) greater than four hectares in size, excludingany adjoining hedgerows;
(b) consisting primarily of native species of trees; and, (c) meets the criteria of a woodland
in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Woodland Conservation By-law.
The Region encourages good stewardship practices to manage public and private
woodlands through the development and implementation of forest management plans.It
directs area municipalities to consider the importance of woodlandsduring the
development review processand encourages to adopt a Tree PreservationBy-law to
prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring oftrees in woodlands less than four hectares
in area.
On August 18, 2022, Regional Council passed By-lawNo. 22-038 to adopt Amendment
No.6 to the ROP(the Amendment). This amendment updates several planning policies,
objectives and mapping in the ROPto ensure they conform to the Growth Plan and are
consistent with the PPS. This amendment is currently awaiting approval by the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
The Amendment directs area municipalities to adopt policies and zoning that advancethe
integration ofgreen infrastructure and increase intree canopy to adapt to the impacts of
a changing climate.
Evaluation of existing environmental policy is anticipated to be part of the second phase
of the ROP Review.
Conservation of Trees in WoodlandsBy-Law 08-026
T-law 08-026 applies to all natural
forested areas that are at least one hectare in size with the requisite number of trees
(1,000 trees of any size, 750 trees over five (5) cm in diameter, 500 treesover 12cm in
9
1 - 19
diameter, or 250 trees over 20 cm in diameter)per hectare. Around41%of Kitchener
tree canopy iswithin woodlands one hectare in size or greater.The by-law sets the
prohibitions and exemptions underwhich protected species ofwoodland trees may and
may not be destroyed or injured. It outlines three permit types that can be obtained to
allow the destruction of trees: the Good Forestry Practices Permit, the Diameter
Limit/Basal Area Permit, and the Woodlot Removal Permit. It also gives
powers to makean order to the owner/occupier of a property to discontinue activities that
contravene the by-law.
2.3C URRENT A PPROACHAT C ITY OF K ITCHENER
Following provincial and regional direction, the Cityof Kitchener worksto protect and
manage trees.Importance of trees and the numerous benefits theyprovide are reflected
inseveralcity documentsthatinfluence tree conservation and management within the
City, such as:
-2028: A long-term guiding
document that presents the vision and goal for a sustainable urban forest, along
with identified actions intended to guide future decisions and priorities. It identifies
what is required to grow and maintain big, healthy trees that provide the greatest
benefits to the community. A review and potential update of existing by-laws and
policies that protect city trees, their soil habitat natural areas, and private trees is
identified as an action item.
Tree Canopy Technical Report:A periodic technical report analyzing
opy metrics through use of high-resolution imagery and LiDAR
data. This report helps in tracking and monitoring of the tree canopy in the City.
Kitchener, Changing for Good-Our Corporate Climate Action Plan for
Sustainability: A climate action plan for reducing corporate level greenhouse gas
emissions while adapting to local climate change impacts.
Integrated Storm Water Management Master Plan: Master Plan setting targets for
stormwater management in the City and how to achieve them,recommending
measures to improve overall environmental performance, increasingefficiencies,
and reducingcosts.
10
1 - 20
Complete StreetsKitchenerStreets for All: Guidelines to design safe and
g towards sustainability,
health and social priorities.
mapping that approximately identifies its natural heritage system, including among
other things, regionally significant and locally significant woodlands. These are
identified as core natural heritage features and designated Natural Heritage
Conservation. These woodlands are protected from development, redevelopment
and site alteration.
By-laws (Zoning By-law85-1 and Zoning By-law2019-051):
Zoning By-lawsimplements the objectives and policies set out in the
al Plan by providing regulations around how to manage land and
future development in Kitchener. The Natural Heritage System land use
designation is implemented in the ZoningBy-lawthrough the application of a
Natural Heritage Conservation Zone. The purpose of this zone is to protect and
conserve natural heritage features, including woodlands, and their ecological
functions on public and well as private properties. This zoneonly permits existing
agriculture and natural heritage conservation uses.
Urban Design Manual:Council adopted document containingguidelines to ensure
that new development
design.
Municipal Code Chapter 270:By-lawprohibiting prescribed activities within City
parks including cutting, destroying or damaging in any way any tree, flower, shrub
or flowerbed subject to approvals.
Municipal Code Chapter 633:By-lawprohibiting any activity connected to site
alteration within the City except in accordance with a permit.
Municipal Code Chapter 665:-outlining
the applicable minimum standards formaintenance and occupancy that property
owners must follow.Exterior property areas are to be maintained in a safe
conditionwhich includesthe removal of trees, bushes, and hedges including any
branches or limbs thereof which are dead, decayed or damaged, and brushed.
11
1 - 21
Municipal CodeChapter 690:By-law
destruction or injury to any tree, sapling or shrub growing on City property.
Municipal Code Chapter 691:By-lawproviding an officer to enter and inspect
any land, including trees and vegetation, for pests.
Municipal Code Chapter 692:The CBy-lawprohibiting injury
of tree or trees on private land within the City without a permit.
Tree Management Policy:A Counciladopted policy document whichformulates
definite and specific requirements to ensure tree management. Policy ensures
consistency and effective assessment of plans submitted with Planning Act
applications.
City of Kitchener Development Manual:
engineering requirements, guidelines, specifications and standards, which guide
the design and construction of public infrastructure, and requirements for obtaining
approvals associated with development applications.
Conservation and management of existing trees on public and private lands are enabled
through different toolsin the City. The next subsections speato tree
conservation and management on public and private lands.
Approach to Tree Conservation and Managementon Public Lands
Trees on City lands are recognizorate assets. Public trees
include those locatedin parks, open spaces andnaturalareas, as well as those on the
road right-of-way (boulevard trees).48% of
owned lands, including City ownedlands and that owned by other public agencies(City
of Kitchener, 2021).
Policiesinthe Official Planpromote and encourage reforestation and
naturalization of parks, open space and stormwater management areas. Further, the City
is required to protect and manage trees located within and outside a road right-of-way by
encouraging public authorities to give due consideration to their preservation when
undertaking projects and maintenance activities. The City also requires replacement of
12
1 - 22
any trees damaged or removed from anexisting road right-of-way due to a development
or infrastructure project.
Ki
significant and locally significant woodlands. These are identified as core natural heritage
features and designated NaturalHeritage Conservationin the OfficialPlan.These
woodlands are protected from development, redevelopment and site alteration.
The Zoning By-lawapplies a Natural Heritage Conservation Zonefollowing the Natural
Heritage Systemland use designation of the Official Plan. This zone protects and
conserves the natural heritage features, including woodlands, on both public and private
lands. Only existing agriculture and natural heritage conservation uses are permittedin
this zone.
31% of all tree canopy in Kitcheneris protected by Natural Heritage Conservationland
use designationand/orzone, and is on publicly owned lands.
-he By-law was first
adopted in 1987 and later amended in 1988, 1991, 2000, 2001and 2011. The
Infrastructure Services Department administers this By-law and is authorized for all acts
necessary to provide for the planting, care and maintenance of all treeson City property.
The By-law prohibits damage, destruction or injury to any tree, sapling or shrub or any
part thereof located on a City property. It also prohibits damage, destruction and removal
of any supporting post, stake or guard attached to or around a tree, and cutting, rooting
and removingany tree or part thereof whether living or dead.
37% of all tree canopy in Kitchener is regulated bythe Citys Tree By-law.
TheCity of KitchenerDevelopment Manual identifies the minimum requirementsfor tree
planting andsoil habitat zones for all City lands managed by InfrastructureServices
DepartmentunderSection M -Urban Forest Tree Planting & Establishment. The
requirementsincludedetails aboutminimum quantities, tree size, soil volumes, cash-in-
lieu paymentsand species diversity. The number of trees requiredand their locations
varies by the type of development and land usewhile rest of the requirements remain
same for all types of developments.
13
1 - 23
PLACEHOLDER FORMAP HIGHLIGHTINGALL TREE CANOPY ON PUBLIC LANDS
Approach to Tree Conservation and Managementon PrivateProperties
Although trees on City lands are an integral part of
majority(50%)of treecanopy is located on privately ownedlands(City ofKitchener,
2021).TheCityaims toconserveand manage the private trees through use of various
tools.
s Official Planencourages reforestation, wise management and improvement
of privately owned trees and woodlands within the City. Policy 7.C.2.3 protects existing
site conditions within the development review process by not recognizing illegal acts
resulting, or having resulted, in a reduction in the form or function of natural heritage
feature including tree removal. Restoration of the damaged area may be required prior
to, or as a condition of, approval of any development application. The City may also
requireexisting trees and vegetation to be retained through the SitePlan Approval
process.
The Zoning By-lawapplies a Natural Heritage Conservation Zone which protects and
conserves the natural heritage features, including woodlands, on private and public lands.
18% of all tree canopy in Kitcheneris protected by Natural Heritage Conservationland
use designationand/orzone, and is onprivateproperties.
The Tree Management Policy applies where a proposed development requires a Planning
Act application (e.g. subdivision, Official Planand Zoning By-lawamendments, site plans,
andsome committee of adjustment applications). It consists of the following three steps
within which data collection and analysis is sequentially undertaken:
1.General Vegetation Overview:The purpose of a General Vegetation Overview is
to provide an inventory and mapping of biological and physical characteristics for
each vegetation community. This is required for all lots or blocks within a Draft Plan
of Subdivision. It determines which vegetation community requires further data and
analysis, and the criteria to evaluate the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The Tree
14
1 - 24
Management Policy specifies the information generally requiredfor theGeneral
Vegetation Overview.
2.Detailed Vegetation Plan:The purpose of a Detailed Vegetation Plan is to provide
further data and analysis as set out in a previously approved General Vegetation
Overview. It is required forall lots and blocks containing vegetation communities
requiring further data and analysis.
3.Tree Preservation/EnhancementPlan:This is required for subdivisions where the
Detailed Vegetation Plan identified trees to be retained, site development under
Section 41 of the Planning Act, and lots containingtrees created by consent under
Section 52 of the Planning Act.
Tree removal onprivate property is subject to the Tree Conservation By-lawwhich
prohibits injury of tree(s)on privatepropertieswithin the City without a permit. The By-
law,in addition tothe statutory exemptions,exempts lands less than 1 acre or 0.405
hectares in size, and small trees with a diameter at breast height of less than 10
centimeters.
PLACEHOLDER FOR A MAP HIGHLIGHTING ALL PRIVATE TREE CANOPY
Challenges with Current Approach to Tree Conservation and Management
City staff have identified variouschallenges with respect to regulating trees on public and
private propertiesthrough the current processes. These challenges pertain tothe
vulnerable tree canopy (i.e.,tree canopy not protected or regulated throughthe current
processes),and recent development trendsrelated to intensification and infill
development.Some of the challenges include:
72% of existing tree canopyis collectively protected through the
Natural Heritage Conservation land use designation in the Official Plan and/or the
NHC-1 zone in the Zoning By-law, and/or r
Woodland Conservation By-law (woodlands 1 hectare in size or greater), the
Kitchener Tree By-law (trees on City property), and/or the Kitchener Tree
Conservation By-law (trees on private properties 1 acre in size or greater). This
means that 28% ofexisting tree canopy is not protected or regulated
15
1 - 25
and therefore vulnerableto removals from private property, or from properties
owned by other public agencies. Figurebelow highlights the existing tree canopy
in Kitchener that is protected/regulated or not protected/regulated.
PLACEHOLDER FOR MAP HIGHLIGHTINGEXISTING TREE
CANOPY THAT IS PROTECTED/REGULATED COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
DIFFERENT TOOLS AND THAT IS NOT PROTECTED/REGULATED
Impact on trees(publicand private) and their root zonesfrom development on
adjacent propertiesincluding additional dwelling units, anddriveway widening and
curb cuts.
Administrative challenges,includingbut not limited to,extensive staff timeinvolved
withreviewing development applicationsand inspectingand monitoring trees as
part of these applicationsthat areto be retained.
Inconsistenciesin absence of clear treereplacement and compensation policies
and coordination required between different departments.
16
1 - 26
3T REE C ONSERVATION AND M ANAGEMENT J URISDICTIONAL S CAN
Other municipalities in Ontario as well as in other Provinces, use various mechanisms to
conserve and manage trees. Using publicly available data and information collected
through key-informant interviews, this section provides a summary of some shortlisted
municipalities in Canadaand their comparison with the City of Kitchener in relation to
conserving and managing trees within their respective jurisdictions.
3.1S HORTLISTING M UNICIPALITIES
Forthis review, municipalities were selected on a rangeof criteria. This included similar
population size, similar population density, fast growth rates, proximity, progressiveness,
andsimilar urban character/natureto Kitchener. Additionally, some municipalitieswere
considered due to their large population size, high density, and continuedleadership in
policy development, including tree conservation and management.Table 1lists the12
selected municipalities and the reason(s) fortheirinclusion.
Table 1. List of shortlisted municipalities and reason(s) for inclusion
MunicipalityReason(s)forInclusion
City of WaterlooArea municipality within the Region of Waterloo
City of CambridgeArea municipality within the Regionof Waterloo
City of GuelphSimilar population density and proximity to Kitchener
Town of OakvilleSimilar population size,population density and character
to Kitchener
City of LondonProximity and similar character to Kitchener
City of MississaugaProximity and similar character to Kitchener
City of HamiltonProximity and similar character to Kitchener
Town of New TecumsethRecently updated processes
City of TorontoLarge population size, high population density, leadership
in policy development
City of VancouverLarge population size, high population density, leadership
in policy development
17
1 - 27
City of EdmontonLarge population size, high population density, leadership
in policy development
City of SurreyLarge population size, progressive, fast-growing
municipality (similar to Kitchener)
3.2R ESEARCH AND A NALYSIS
This section provides an overview ofthe existing tree conservation and management
processes at theselected municipalities. Each of the municipalitieswereexploredto
check whattools they use to conserve and manage trees, or to enhance tree canopy
within their jurisdictions.Largely, it was observed that municipalities use the following
tools to conserve and manage trees:
Urban forest management plan/strategy(UFMP/S) or equivalent, including
specifiedtree canopytargets(TCT);
Official plan policies(OP)inrelation to treeconservation and management;
Treemanagement policy/guidelines/manual/standardsor equivalentdocuments
(TMP) used to guide the development process; and,
By-lawsregulating:
o public trees in parks, open spaces and natural areas, as well as those on
the road right-of-way (boulevardtrees)
o trees on private properties
Table 2illustrates a snapshot of the tools that the selectedmunicipalities use to conserve
and manage trees.
Table 2.Overview of tree conservation toolsusedin municipalities
MunicipalityUFMP/S & OPTMPTree By-law
TCT
18
1 - 28
Yes
Yes
19
1 - 29
Urban Forest Management Plan/Strategy& Tree Canopy Target
Urban Forest Management Planor Strategy(UFMP/S) is essentially a strategy document
that outlines a muvision andgoals of growingand maintaining the urban forest
asset.UFMP/Saretypicallyintended to maintain or enhance the urban forest in a
municipality through high-level goals supportedthroughspecific recommendationsand
action items.The goals largely revolve around planning, engaging, maintaining,
protecting,and planting,similar to the five branches ofKitchene
Forest Strategy.Therecommendations and/or action items on the other hand are tailored
tothe municipalityandcan include influencing Official Plan policies regarding trees,
direction oninstituting tree by-laws, and direction onestablishing public education
programsandtree-planting programs.
Of the 12 municipalitiesreviewed, 10 havean UFMP/Sdocument.City of Waterloo and
the City of Hamilton do not currently have a UFMP/S.Appendix Adocumentsthe types
of tree-related issuesaddressed through actions and/or recommendations by the
municipality, and other ways theyplan on growing their urban tree canopy.
Municipalities also set tree canopy targets based on current canopy cover, anticipated
future trends,and goals set out by the municipality. Table 3provides a summary of
existing tree canopy and tree canopy targetsset by the selected municipalities.Most
municipalities set a municipality-wide tree canopy target. City of Kitchener, in addition,
has set a target for each ward as well. Some municipalities (City of London, Town of New
Tecumseth) have setthe tree canopy targetto be achieved for a specified area within the
municipality. Further, some municipalities (Town of Oakville) have tree canopy targets by
land usedesignation (not shown in the table).
20
1 - 30
Table 3. Existing Tree Canopy and Tree CanopyTargets
MunicipalityExisting Tree CanopyTree Canopy Target
21
1 - 31
DevelopmentReview
The development review process in municipalities with respect to tree conservation and
management is more or less similar. Policies in the municipal Official Plans areoften
supplemented with additional guiding documents that assist in tree conservation and
management through the development review process.
Appendix Blistspolicies related to tree conservation and management in the respective
Official Plans ofthe selected municipalities.
All 12 municipalities reviewed have policies that deal withenvironmental features
including trees and urban forests. Generally, municipalities apply natural heritage
that aredelineated through a map attached to the Official Plan. The primary objective of
delineating the natural heritage protection areas isto protect and enhance the ecological
network within municipaljurisdictions. Althoughtrees are not the specific focus of such
policies, the policies include protection of significant environmental features (including
woodlands), planning for green and sustainable development, and restoring the urban
landscape through appropriate (native, climate resilient) planting. More restrictive policies
apply to lands close to environmental features identified under the natural heritage
protection areas. However, much of the previously developed urban landscape remains
outside the boundaries of these protections.
A range of policies in municipal Official Plans are relatedto conservationof trees and
often linked tothe development review process. The primary objective of such policies is
to retain existing trees and preserve the existing landscape asmuch as possible.
However,some developments are not able to preserve all trees located on site. Most
policies are thereforecentered around replacement or relocation of trees damaged
through developmentin order to guide preservation of pre-existing landscape through
either replacement on-site or relocation off-site. This is considered to bethe next best
approach to address tree loss if a development is not able to retain trees.
Majority of the Official Plan policies direct to include tree inventory/protection/preservation
plan as part of a development application. Such plansinvolve documentation of existing
22
1 - 32
trees, ones to beretained and ones intended to be destroyed. This allows municipalities
to monitor the treescape and hold applicants to high standards for protection of trees
while development occurs. Planners are provided with a level of control to ensure
adequate tree planting is included in development agreements.
Municipalities have expressed concern regarding the application of these policies through
the planning process and the potential for applicants to clear-cut a site before submitting
a formal developmentapplication. Some Official Plans include policies that confront this
concern through including policies that ensure applicants are held accountable for
alterations made to a site before a developmentapplication is submittedtothe
municipality. The Cityof Kitchener and the City of Waterloo have policyin their Official
Plansthat does not recognizeconditions resulting due tosuch as tree
removal as existing conditions and enables conditions to be imposed to restorethe
damaged area.However, theuse of the term debatable.The Town of New
Tecumseth has approached this challenge by prohibiting removal of protected trees within
two years of a development or demolition application in its tree by-law.References toand
adherence to the intent ofother municipal policies or by-laws make tree conservation and
management stronger, particularly where existing trees havebeen removed or damaged
prior to an application or during the process of obtaining approval.
Some Ontario municipalities(City of Guelph, Town of Oakville),in their Official Plans, also
refer to the importance of trees in matters of heritage preservation. These policies enable
tree conservation as a matter of preserving heritage landscapes or natural heritage
features of neighbourhoods through additional protection of designated heritage items
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Many municipalities (Cityof Waterloo, City of Cambridge, City of Guelph, Town of
Oakville, City ofHamilton, City of Vancouver, City of Surrey) include design-related
policies regarding trees within their Official Plans. Such policies support the aesthetic and
material benefits that trees provide residents serving as a way to encourage tree planting
orprotection. These policies communicate thattrees should be retained, replanted or
relocated in order to achieve desirable aesthetics or provide distinct benefits to users of
23
1 - 33
the area.The City of Kitchener refers to the Urban Design Manual and the Development
Manual for incorporating existing and/or new trees into design.
Subtle differences were observed in the languageof policies. For instance, some policies
aremore direct using tarenon-binding and open for
interpretation bshouldLanguage prompting protection of trees directs tree
protection to be considered and incorporated into design through the development
process. On the other hand, the use of non-binding language draws attention to
considering trees in the development process but is more likely to be interpreted as a
suggestion for consideration.
Beyondthe Official Plan policiesdiscussed in the previous subsection,most
municipalities(City of Cambridge, City of Guelph, City of Mississauga, City of London,
City of Hamilton,Town of Oakville, Town ofNew Tecumseth, City of Toronto, City of
Edmonton) have separate guiding document(s)as the City of Kitchener. The City of
Kitchener has the Tree Management Policy, the Urban Design Manualand the
Development Manual that assist City staff and the development industry including
developers, builders and their consultants and contractors to prepare and evaluate
submissions associated with development and infrastructure.
The City of Tree Management Policyprovides detailson submission
requirementsat different stages of a development applicationthrough three types of
documents(general vegetation overview, detailed vegetation plan, and tree
preservation/enhancement plan).Other municipalities have similar requirements during
development applications for tree inventoryand preservation.
Some municipalities (City of Guelph, Town of New Tecumseth, City of Mississauga)list
tree replacement ratios and/orapproach tocompensation formula. Most tree replacement
ratios are based on the sizeof the tree being destroyed. The City of Guelph and the Town
of New Tecumseth enablereplacement/compensation based on aggregate caliper
formula, area-basedcanopy approach andmass planting approach.The City of
Edmonton places emphasis on the replacement costversus monetaryvalue of a tree and
necessitateshigher of the two forcompensation.The cost of replacing a tree includes the
plant material, installation, all planning components, watering and young tree
24
1 - 34
maintenance (pruning and stakeremoval).The City of Kitchener basesits tree
replacement on the value of the tree to be destroyeddetermined by practices established
by the International Society of Arboriculture, where replacement trees are to be of the
same or greater value.The Cityof Cambridge,in addition to following a similar approach
to the City of Kitchener,enablesrequirement of security depositsor letter of credit for
detailed vegetation planson lots that are to cometo public ownership.The value of the
trees aredetermined through consultation with the Forestry Technician.
identifies the minimum requirements for tree
planting and soil habitatzones for all City lands. Other municipalities have these
requirementsas well but not necessarily consolidated in one document.The requirements
typicallyinclude details about minimum tree quantities, tree size, soil volumes, cash-in-
lieu payments,and species diversity. The number of trees required,and their locations
varies by the type ofdevelopment and land use while rest of the requirements remain
same for all types of developments.
Public Tree By-laws
Public tree by-laws regulatetrees owned by the municipalityincluding trees located in
parks, open spaces and naturalareas, as well as those on the road right-of-way or
boulevards.Of the 12 municipalitiesreviewed, 11 havea public tree by-law.City of
Guelph is the only municipality in the selected municipalities that doesnot currently have
a public tree by-law.Key components of thepublic tree by-laws and differences in the
municipalities are discussed below.
1.Prohibition, application, and exemptions
Public tree by-lawsee By-law,prohibitinjury, damage,or
destruction ofany tree, sapling or shrub or any part thereof located on a property
owned by the municipality;damage, destruction and removal of any supporting
post, stakeor guard attached to or around a tree;cutting, rooting and removing
any tree or part thereof whether living or dead;and fastening, tying or attaching
25
1 - 35
any animal, fence, wire, bill or notice to any tree or to any post, stake or guard
which supports a tree.
The authority for planting, care and maintenance and removal of treesis also set
out in public tree by-laws. Further,the responsibility of executingwork onmunicipal
propertyand taking all necessary steps to avoid injuring of trees is on the person
or corporation undertaking the work. Kitchen-law requiresadequate
steps for the protection of any trees on city property within 6.09 metres (20 feet) of
anysuch lot before commencement of work.Other municipalities (City of Toronto,
Town of Oakville,City of Mississauga, City of Edmonton, City of Surrey, Town of
New Tecumseth)have similar requirements, buthave also developed separate
tree protectionprocedures that must be adhered to when construction is occurring
near citytrees.Some of these municipalities also have a permitting systemin place
to support the public tree bylaw.These permits providea proactive notification that
a city tree may be impacted by construction, allow conditions tobe applied to the
permit and in some cases collect securitiestoensure tree protection measures are
implemented and monitored for the duration of a project.
Kit-lawalso prohibits grade alterationaround trees without the
specific permission from the department. Further, permission is required to plant
trees on City property.In contrast,it does not specify permission is required to
injureor destroyapublic tree(s).
2.Orders, offences, and penalties
By-law does notenablemaking orders for contravention
of any provision of the by-law. It provides thatevery person who contravenes any
provision of the by-lawis guilty of an offence and liable, upon conviction, to afine.
Thefine, not exceeding $5,000,is exclusive of costs and recoverable under the
Provincial Offences Act. Further, the by-law enablesrecovering of costs for
damage or destruction of a tree.For atree which is damaged beyond repair, the
cost includesthat of removing the tree andthe valueof the tree as established by
26
1 - 36
the appropriate method of appraisal prescribed by the InternationalSociety of
Arboriculture.
Some municipalities (City of Waterloo, Town ofOakville, City of Toronto, City of
London,City of Hamilton)enable makingorderseither to cease the contravention
or to do work to correct the contravention.In contrast to the maximum fineset out
-law, other municipalities (Town of Oakville, Cityof
Mississauga) specify minimum and maximum fines for a first and subsequent
convictionand in case ofcontinuing offences. Town of Oakville includesa clause
that removes any upper limit of fine amount where there is an economic advantage
or gain from the contravention.In addition to finesapplied upon convictionfor
contravening the bylaw,some municipalities (City of Toronto, City of London, City
of Hamilton,Townof New Tecumseth, City of Edmonton)can issue set
administrative penaltiesor tickets forthe injury or removal of citytrees.
Private Tree By-laws
Private tree by-laws regulate the removal of trees on privately owned lands. 10 of the 12
municipalitiesreviewed have a private tree by-law.The extent to which a municipality
regulates privatetree protection varies. Key components of private tree by-laws and
differences in the municipalities are discussed below.
1.Prohibition,application,and exemptions
Private tree by-laws prohibit causing or permitting the causing ofinjuryor damage
to treeson private properties without a permit. Injury or damage is generally
defined to include: removing, cutting, girdling, or smothering of the tree or its roots;
interfering with the water supply; setting fire to a tree; applying chemicals on,
aroundor nearthe tree;andcompaction of regrading within the dripline of a tree.
Some municipalities, such as the City of Cambridge,theTown of Oakville, and the
City of Mississauga specify that maintenance pruning is not considered as
injury/damageto a tree whengood arboriculture practicesare followed.
Furthermore, the Town of New Tecumseth prohibitsremoval of tree(s) within two
27
1 - 37
(2) years of a development/demolition application, including road occupancy
permit and site alteration applications.
Depending on theobjectivesof andresourcesavailablewith the municipality,the
application of private tree by-lawsdiffers.Table4summarizes the application of
private tree by-laws in the selected municipalities.
Most commonly,private tree by-laws are based onthe size of the treemeasured
by the diameter at breast height (DBH).Some municipalities(City of Kitchener and
City of Guelph)use a combination of size of the tree and size of the land to regulate
trees.Further, somemunicipalities specify species of trees to be regulated (City of
Surrey) or refer totrees classified as endangered,threatened or at risk under the
provincial Endangered Species Act or the federal Species at Risk Act(Town of
Oakville).Some municipalities (Town of Oakville and City of Mississauga) also
specify regulation oftrees required to be retained or planted as a condition of a
development application or the by-law itself.
Table4. Application of Private TreeBy-laws
MunicipalityApplication
City of KitchenerT
City of WaterlooNo private tree by-law
City of Cambridge
City of GuelphT
Town of Oakville
Trees of any sizeretained or planted as
a condition of an
approved site plan
City of Londonwithin the urban
growth boundary
Treesof any sizewithin a tree
protection area
City of Mississauga
28
1 - 38
Replacement trees
City of Hamiltonwithin certain areas of
the City (Ancaster and
Dundas)
Town of New Tecumsethpart of a development
Significant or heritage tree
City of Toronto30 cm
Trees of any sizewithin a protected
area (through a
separate Ravine and
Natural Feature
Protection By-law)
City of Vancouver
City of EdmontonNo private tree by-law
City of Surrey
Replacement Trees
Treesplanted or retained
through a development
application
Treesin a riparian area
Treeswith evidence of
nesting
Specified tree species
The Municipal Actlists statutory exemptions fortree by-laws passed under Section
135 but does allow for flexibility in what is regulated.Injury or damage to a tree is
generally exempt from the requirement for a permitif:the tree isdead, diseased
or hazardous;the tree isdamaged or destroyedand removal is in the interest of
public safety, health or general welfare;the tree is within five (5) meters of an
occupied building, or located within a building envelop in respect of which a
building permit has been issued;activities or matters are undertaken by a
29
1 - 39
municipality or a local board of a municipality; activities or mattersareregulated or
licensed underother statutessuch as the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Forestry
Act, Surveyors Act,Electricity Act,Farming and Food Protection Act,or Aggregate
Resources Act;and, activities or matters are in accordance with a condition to the
approval of a development application or agreement under Section 41, 51, 52, or
70.2 of the Planning Act.Some municipalities such as the City of Cambridge, the
City of Guelph,the Town of Oakvilleand the City of Mississauga also exempt trees
located on rooftop gardens,ininterior courtyards, insolariums,in a nursery,orin
a golf course.
Some municipalities do not exempt dead, diseased or hazardous tree(s) or
damaged or destroyed tree(s) where removal is in the interest of public safety (City
of Mississauga, City of Vancouver). These municipalities require an issuance of a
permit, where an application needs to be supported with an arborist or other
qualified professional certifying the condition of the tree.
2.Permitsand Conditions
Application requirements
Private tree by-laws prescribe information and fees required for a complete
application for a permit to injure or damage a tree regulated under the by-law.In
addition to general identifierinformation,prescribed feesand consent from all
owners (particularly in case of a boundary tree),municipalities require specific
information related to trees and/or environmental featuresto be submitted.
City of Kitchener requiresa detailed plan or survey ofthe subject site which clearly
identifies location and dimensions of the trees proposed to be injured and/or
retained, and all significant features of the lands including but not limited to rivers,
streams, steep slopes (greater than 20 percent), wetlandsor environmentally
regulated areas. A General Vegetation Overview, Detailed Vegetation Plan or Tree
Preservation/Enhancement Plan prepared and signed by a qualified professional
in accordance with the City of Kitchener Tree Management Policy may also be
required.-law also enables additional
30
1 - 40
information to be required within a specified period of time if deemed necessary to
evaluate the application.
Municipalities(City of Cambridge, City of Guelph)requirephotographs to be
submitted along with a plan or plan of survey including the location, species, DBH
and condition of each tree to be injured or retained, purpose for the injuryor
destruction, nature and method of the proposed injury or destruction, and nature
and method of the protection for each of the trees to be retained including if
required a tree protection plan.Furthermore,some municipalities (City of Guelph,
Town of Oakville, City of Mississauga, City of Toronto, City of London)enable the
requirement ofan arborist
report/opinionto be submitted for various purposes. The Town of Oakville
licensesarborists under its Licensing By-law. City of Vancouver and City of Surrey
identify arborists as certifiedby the International Society of Arboriculture.
corporated with
its public tree by-law, it does not lend the opportunity to apply for permits.
Issuance or refusalof a permit
Perm-law are valid
for a period of ninety calendar days from the date of issuance. A permit may be
extended where an owner applies to renew a permitat least thirty calendar days
before the date of expiry accompanied with a payment of one-half of the original
permit fee.City of Guelph issues permits for a period of ninety days as well witha
one-timeextension of ninety days.Other municipalities (City of Cambridge, Town
of Oakville and City of Mississauga) issue permits valid for 12 monthswhile City
of Vancouver issues permits valid for 6 months.
Private tree by-laws set out requirements for issuance and/or refusal of tree
permits. General criteriafor issuance of a permit include submission of complete
application and prescribed fees. Other criteriafor issuance of apermit to injureor
destroya treeat City of Kitchenerinclude:proposed injurybeing in accordance
with good forestry practices;interference with natural drainage processes; soil
31
1 - 41
erosion, slope instability or siltation in a watercourse; impact on healthy vegetation
community or on fish or wildlife habitat within and adjacent to subject site;
contravention to the Species at Risk Act, theEndangered Species Act, or the
Migratory Birds Convention Act; and/orconsistency with an approved tree
preservation plan.
Othermunicipalities specify the use offollowing criteria for the issuance of a permit
to injure or destroy a tree: condition and location of the tree; reason(s) for the
proposed injury or destruction; no reasonable alternatives to the proposed injury
or destruction; preservation of retained trees on the lot; and protection and
preservation of ecological systems and their functions.
The criteria for issuanceof a permit discussed above also become criteria for
refusal of a permit for the injury or destruction of a tree.
Conditionson a permit
Private tree by-laws enableissuance of permits subject to conditions. City of
-lawstipulatesconditions which may be imposed
as a requirement for a permitincluding:submission of landscaping or restoration
plans and associated maintenance plans;requiring replacement trees be planted;
undertaking of tree cutting work only under supervision of an arborist;the manner
and timing in which injury is to occur; or,the species, size, number and location of
trees to be injured.
Further, where planting of replacement trees is imposed as a condition, further
conditions may include: species, size, number and location of the replacement
tree; submission of landscaping or restoration plans and associated maintenance
plans; or submission of a written undertakingsigned by the ownerfor carrying out
replacement planting.Where replacement trees are not possible to be planted on
the subject site, conditions maybe imposed: to plant replacement trees on other
suitable land; or, to pay an amount equaling 120 percent of the cost for planting
replacement trees and maintaining the trees for a period of two years.
32
1 - 42
nservation By-law does not specify any ratio or the size of the
replacement treesto be planted. This is left at the discretion of the Director. Some
municipalities such as the Town of Oakville,the City of Vancouverand the City of
Surreyspecify the number and size ofthereplacement trees based on the size of
the tree being removed.City of Surrey also enables requirement of a security
deposit in cash or letter of credit where replacement trees or retention of existing
trees are required as a condition of a permit.
Some municipalities(City of Cambridge, City of Guelph)stipulate imposing other
conditions such as implementation of specified measures to mitigate the direct and
indirect effects of injuring or destroying other nearby trees, land water bodies or
natural areas. Furthermore, municipalities such as City of Cambridge and City of
Londonenable imposing special conditions as necessary in addition to those
specified in their respective by-laws.
Appeals
The Town of Oakville, the City of Mississauga, the City of London, and the City of
Toronto allow the applicant to appeal a refused tree permitapplication within a
prescribed time(generally 14, 21, or 30 days)from the date of issue of the decision.
There is no requirement under the Municipal Actto provide for an appeal process
for a by-lawpassed under Section 135 of the Act.
3.Orders, offences,and penalties
-lawenables for the Director to make an order
the owner or any other person in contravention of the by-law or a condition of a
permit issued under the by-law to cease any or all work immediately,and/or to take
necessary steps in accordance with the approved permit, plans, documents and
other information upon which the permit was issued and in accordance with the
conditions of the permitwithin a time set out in the order.
Some municipalities such as the City of Mississauga, the City of London and the
City of Toronto enable making an order to do work to correct the contravention.
This may require that any injured or destroyed tree be replaced with a replacement
33
1 - 43
tree and further specifyitsspecies and location or payment in lieu be provided for
where a replacement tree cannot be located on the lot.
Any person or corporation who contravenes any provision of the by-law, conditions
of a permit, or an order issued under the by-law, is guilty of an offence and liable
to fines. Generally,the fines are exclusive of costs and are collectible pursuant to
the Provincial Offences Act. City of Kitchenerenables penalties as follows:
For contravention by a person
o on a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding $25,000; and,
o on any subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
For contravention by a corporation
o on a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding $50,000; and,
o on any subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
In addition to minimum and maximum fines for a first and subsequent conviction,
most of the other municipalities (City of Cambridge, City of Guelph, City of
Mississauga, City of London) prescribe a minimum fine of $500andminimum and
maximum fines per tree. They also clarify thatin case of multiple offences, the total
of all daily fines is not limited to the maximum. In most cases, the maximum fine is
$100,000.
Resources for Administrationof Tree Conservation Processes
The extent of tree regulation on public and private properties is closely linkedwith
resources available with a municipality to implement these regulations. All municipalities
have differentstaff complementavailableat theirendwhich is summarized in Table 5.
Typically, the duties are observed to bedivided amongstPlanning and Forestry teams
with assistance from By-law Enforcement, similar to what the City of Kitchener currently
has.
34
1 - 44
Table 5. Staff Resources available with select municipalities
MunicipalityStaff Resources
o
o
35
1 - 45
o
o
36
1 - 46
Note: Staff resourcing information has beencollected through municipal interviews and/or
municipal staff reportspublished and available in the public domain.
Other Learnings
Additionalopportunities were identified from conversationswith municipalities and their
experiences administering tree conservation and management tools. These are:
Education and communication
Educating stakeholders and communicating the processes around tree
conservation clearly can contribute positively towards the success of conserving
trees.
Notification procedures and monitoring
Municipalities have communicated advantages of monitoring changes in tree
canopy through tree permits and development applications, and benefits in
establishing notification procedures where injury or destruction of a tree does not
require a permit or development application. Some municipalities have embedded
notification procedures in previous versions of their by-laws to gather data and
made informed updates.
Bylaw review intervals
Some municipalities use data collected through their notification procedures and
monitoring to review their bylaws at set intervals or on an annual basis and may
make necessary updates and changes to ensure bylaws are effective.
Foresters plusby-lawofficers
Municipalities where foresters were also by-law officers conveyed advantages of
foresters to be able to enforce by-laws, including the abilitytoissue orders and
penalties.
Professionals licensed with the municipality
37
1 - 47
Some municipalities requireprofessionals working on trees within their
jurisdictions to be licensed with the municipality. This helpswithbuild relationships
between municipal staff and contractors, as well as improve bylaw compliance.
Tree incentive programs
Some municipalities have conveyed advantages and success of certain tree
incentives programsproviding the public with financial support to maintain and
retain a specified size of trees on private properties.
38
1 - 48
4C ONCLUSION
Thereview of existing processesfor tree conservation and management on public and
private lands in the City of Kitchenerandinother municipalities demonstratesthat the
City of Kitchener uses all tools available to conserve and manage trees.This includes the
Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy, the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law, theTree
Management Policy, the Tree By-law, the Tree Conservation By-law, and the
Development Manual.
However, the review alsosuggests that
application of these tools.There is opportunity to learn from the implementation of tools
by othermunicipalities andimprove .A second
phase of the project to further explore opportunities to enhanceKitchener
conservation tools, shouldbe undertaken to strengthen and extend existing measures.
Updatesshould be based on a measured approach to balance staff resources with
adequate level of treeprotection.
39
1 - 49
G LOSSARY
Good Forestry PracticesAs defined by the Forestry Act,means the proper
implementation of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate
for the forest and environmental conditions under which they are being applied and that
minimize detriments to forest values including significant ecosystems, important fish and
wildlife habitat, soil and water quality and quantity, forest productivity and health and the
aesthetics and recreational opportunities of the landscape.
Green Infrastructure-natural and human-made elements that provide ecological and
hydrological functions and processes. Green infrastructure can include components such
as natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater management systems,
street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces, and greenroofs.
Tree canopy-The layer of branches, stems, and leaves of trees that cover the ground
when viewed above.
Tree canopy,Existing -The amount of urban tree canopy present when viewed from
above using aerial or satellite imagery.
Tree canopy,Potential-The amountof area, includingall the grass, shrub, and bare
including many areas that would not be planted with trees because of their current use
such as: flower/food gardens, grassed areas,playfields, sports fields, golf courses, public
spaces and agricultural lands.
Urban ForestThe trees, forests, greenspace and related abiotic, biotic and cultural
components, all elements of green infrastructure, in the City. It includes all trees, and
forest cover in the Cityas well as related components in surrounding rural areas.
Urban Forest Management Plan or Urban Forest StrategyA tailored document that
guides professionals to proactively manage urban forestsand provide for maximum, long-
termbenefits to the community.
WoodlandTreed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits to both the
private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and
40
1 - 50
nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-term storage of carbon, provision of
wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and thesustainable harvest of a wide
range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas.
Woodland,Locally Significant -A woodland less than 4 hectares in size which is
ecologically important in terms of: i) features such as species composition, age of trees
and stand history; ii) functionally important due to its contribution to thebroader landscape
because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in the planning area; or,
iii) economically important due to site quality, species composition, or past management
history.
Woodland, SignificantA woodland that meets all of the following criteria: i) greater
than 4 hectares in size, excluding any adjoining hedgerows; ii) consisting primarily of
native species of trees; and, iii) meets the criteria of a woodland in accordance with the
provisions of the Regional WoodlandConservation By-law.
41
1 - 51
R EFERENCES
PLACEHOLDER
42
1 - 52
A PPENDICES
PLACEHOLDER
1 - 53
Date:March 6, 2023
To:Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committee
From:Natalie Goss, Manager Policy & Research
Subject:Downtown Kitchener Vision CCEC Engagement
In January 2022, Kitchener Council endorsed a process to develop a vision and set of principles for
Downtown Kitchener. Over the last several months the Downtown Community Working Group a 20-30
community-basedgroup representing unique and diverse perspectives has worked together with City
staff to identify key themes and issues in the downtown.
In late February 2023a comprehensive community engagement process began that includes in-person
and virtual opportunities for community input. As part of the community engagement process, the DCWG
on a vision for DTK. At the March 23, 2023 CCEC meeting City
staff will guide the CCEC through a facilitated discussion using a DIY Facilitation Guide.Approximately 30
minutes has been set aside for this discussion and as such the CCEC are askedto focus on the
discussion questions in Theme Five: Climate and Environmental Leadership.
2 - 1
Date: Monday March 6. 2023
To: Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committee (CCEAC)
From:Anna Marie Cipriani, Corporate Sustainability Officer
cc:
Subject: CorCAP 2.0
On March 7, 2022, Council received DSD-22-072which closed out the City of Kitchener’s first
Corporate Climate Action Plan (CorCAP1.0). As part of the development of this first-
generation plan, the corporation had an 8% greenhouse gas reduction target from its 2016
baseline. This target was reached in 2020. At this time, the City is embarking on the
development of CorCAP 2.0.
Now that a new CCEAC committee has established with a terms of reference aligned with this
body of work – staff wish to engage the committeein the development of the new plan.
So far in this process senior leadership has approved a terms of reference for the project, the
corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventoryfocus areas and criteria for facility
inclusion in the corporate GHG inventory. A corporate scan has recently been completed.
Modelling GHG reduction scenarios has been completed with the support of WalterFedy
consulting. Work is now underway to complete 2021 and 2022 corporate GHG inventories.
There is a strategic session of Council planned for May 8, 2023. And we are beginning to build
the plan upon the learnings from this foundational work.
Staff will make a presentation to CCEAC on March 23, 2023. Suggested questions to continue
to support discussion and moving forward together include:
1.I
f CorCAP 2.0 were to be successful, what outcomes would this next generation plan
support and/or achieve?
2.Do you recommend particular priorities in the fivefocus areas (Facilities, Fleet and
Equipment, Streetlighting, Waste, Staff Travel)?
3.I
s there a role for carbon offsets in our corporate fight against climate change?
4.What support do you as a member of this committee wish to offer in the development of
this plan?
3 - 1
From:Bethany Rowland
Subject:NEWS: Key decisions of Kitchener Council: Feb. 27, 2023
Date:Monday, February 27, 2023 8:52:13 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
For immediate release
Key decisions of Kitchener Council: Feb.
27, 2023
Key decisions of Council is a summary of major discussion items presented at Kitchener City Council
meetings. It is circulated immediately following each meeting. Please refer to the minutes for an
official record of the meeting.
Strategic focus for 2023-2026
During a special council meeting on Monday, council supported five areas to explore further for the
City’s Strategic Plan 2023-2026. The following five major areas were informed by extensive public
engagement including the collaboration of the new Plan WITH Us Resident Panel and City staff:
Belonging and participation
Housing, land and mobility
Environment and climate action
Economic prosperity and opportunity
Good government
Staff also continue to work with Compass Kitchener, a citizen advisory group, inform the strategic
plan, with a focus on casting a new 20-year vision for Kitchener and supporting actions for each of
goal areas identified at today’s Council session.
Council approves 78 infill homes on Fergus Avenue
Council approved a bylaw amendment and recommended an official plan amendment be forwarded
to Waterloo Region for approval, to clear the way for 78 units at Fergus and Falesy avenues. The
proposed seven-storey building, and 89 mostly underground parking spaces, would replace two
detached houses and a garage situated on deep lots. As part of the development, a portion of the
lots will be dedicated to the City to expand Fergus Green Park.
IF - 1
Ontario Health funding supports City programs for seniors
Council approved a funding and service agreement with Ontario Health for the Senior Day and
Connected at Home Program. The funding supports the city to deliver specialized programs and
services that assist older adults to age in place and to maintain social connections. The Senior Day
Program operates five days a week at the Downtown Community Centre and provides a full day of
structured and inclusive programming for older adults living with a variety of physical and cognitive
disabilities. The Connected at Home Program is a new program that was developed in response to
the pandemic and supports certain segments of the older adult population, with a flexible and
responsive model of service delivery.
Accessibility plan approved
Council approved a renewal of the City’s multi-year Accessibility Plan with an emphasis on how the
corporation can go beyond what is outlined in the Accessibility for Ontarians with a Disabilities Act,
AODA, 2005.
The purpose of the accessibility plan is to outline the city’s strategy to prevent and remove barriers
and to meet the requirements under the provincial regulation. The Accessibility Plan was developed
in consultation with the Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee and with the input of
staff.The plan challenges the City to ensure that accessibility is included as a core foundation while
building on the work noted in the previous plan.This plan supports A Caring Community, which is
one of the five strategic goals outlined in the City’s Strategic Plan 2019-2022.
-30-
Bethany Rowland (she/her)
Director, Corporate Communications and Marketing | City of Kitchener
226-752-9038| TTY 1-866-969-9994 | bethany.rowland@kitchener.ca
IF - 2