Always happy to answer your questions – and appreciate your patience always, as sometimes the team and I need time to review and respond. I’ve tried to respond to the points raised and hope they add some additional clarification. I agree that a guide for use by the general public to help navigate the Tree Protection By-laws may be helpful. I can definitely flag this as an item for consideration for development on future work plans.

I also suggest having HHTW engage with representatives from Toronto Buildings and City Planning to determine if they have any resources that can help clarify building and planning regulations and processes. As you know, the tree by-laws do not exist in isolation, rather they function in conjunction with other municipal and provincial regulations.
 
The Ontario Building Code allows for the construction of an “as of right” building on a lot whereby the coverage of the building can be much greater than the existing house.  The new construction can exceed what bylaws allow as long as the Committee of Adjustment approves these variances.     
Yes.

The building can be placed anywhere on the property, even if it removes significant bylaw-protected trees.     
The building footprint can be located as per the Zoning By-law and any variances approved by Committee of Adjustment. Tree By-laws are not considered applicable law, so building permits can be issued without acquiring permits to injure or remove trees if the proposal is zoning-compliant. The tree by-laws are not meant to frustrate development allowed under the Zoning By-law or development deemed appropriate by Committee of Adjustment.

Removing trees and/or completely clear-cutting a lot is allowable even if the proposed build is in a ravine/RNFP area.       
The tree bylaws are not meant to be wholly prohibitive, rather they establish a regulatory framework to preserve trees where possible and regulate removals when not.  

The best HHTW can do is to try and persuade the builder or homeowner to protect the trees on the property.    
For projects that require variances, HHTW can continue to submit comments or voice opinions related to trees at Committee of Adjustment hearings for consideration. The COA panel may choose to render decisions based on comments from the community, however, if HHTW stands silent, it’s a near-certainty its concerns won’t be heard. 

If trees are requested for removal and/or if variances are required, Urban Forestry will review the plans and may do a site visit to see if these variances impact trees beyond what is allowable.                                                          
Site inspections will be done if the plans and/or other submitted resources don’t give enough info for Urban Forestry to review and respond. Urban Forestry’s objective at this stage is to respond to the COA/variances, not necessarily to reach a full understanding of all project impacts on all bylaw-protected trees. This is completed when an application is submitted to Urban Forestry.  

Urban Forestry can suggest a condition but can not insist that the applicant adhere to these conditions.      
Urban Forestry is a commenting division. We routinely present recommended conditions of approval to Committee of Adjustment. The Committee has the discretion to apply conditions as they choose. If a condition is placed on a COA decision, the required action must be done before the applicant can submit a Building Permit application. TPPR and RNFP consistently request conditions using standard language, and these principally require the submission of a tree application, not issuance of a tree permit. So if/when tree application submission appears as an approval condition, said application must be provided to Urban Forestry before a building permit can be sought/issued. Among other benefits, satisfying this condition largely prevents an applicant from claiming ignorance (of the tree bylaws) if and when they injure/remove trees without a permit.

Urban Forestry can try to secure tree protection. Is there actual enforcement of tree protection? Does Urban Forestry double back and make sure these protections are adhered to?
Yes. Urban Forestry has a protocol to proactively inspect sites to confirm compliance with permit conditions including tree planting and hoarding installations. There is also a Compliance and Enforcement group that investigates tree by-law contraventions.

When tree removal occurs, Urban forestry requires replacement tree planting.  Replacement trees are often not placed in the community where they were lost. There is no benefit, quid pro quo or good news story for the neighbourhood in that scenario.  We have been told that Urban Forestry may attempt to have trees replanted in the neighbourhood that lost the trees, but we have seen little proof of that in our neighbourhood.
When trees are required as a condition of a permit, the planting of trees as compensation on the subject property is always the first option. We routinely secure planting on site after construction is complete. As our replacement rations typically require more trees than are removed, some compensation may be accepted as cash in lieu. These funds are used to fund tree planting on public lands.

Again, thank you for HHTWs continued interest in the City’s urban forestry and being advocates for its protection.
Hope you’ve had a good start to the fall season,

Kim Statham

A few things to note:  

• HHTW has requested and Urban Forestry is considering putting together a guide for the general public to help them better understand and navigate Tree Protection By-Laws

• Urban Forestry is now providing Tree Sensitivity Training to Committee of Adjustment members

• The Committee of Adjustment often overrules Urban Forestry’s recommendations, and as you can see above, homeowners have no recourse.  Controversial Bill 23, enacted by the Provincial Conservatives, allows builders and developers to appeal CofA decisions but disallows homeowners from appealing decisions.

• The Committee of Adjustment can act with impunity and, in our opinion, has made many decisions that adversely affect neighbours and neighbourhoods.  Click this link to read email sent to Greg Lintern, Chief Planner Toronto, on this topic in regards to 3 May Tree Road

Kim Statham UN Update

Kim Statham the Head of Urban Forestry will be joining us on a walk through our neighbourhood in December.  We look forward to these opportunities to bring her up to date on community questions and concerns. She recently informed us that Toronto was recently chosen as a Role Model city by the United Nations Environment Program.  Kim is a visionary leader who has an unwavering vision to protect, preserve and grow our urban green spaces.

The UN Environment Program in which Toronto was chosen as a role model city, is a two year program called Generation Restoration.  Toronto will join a total of 19 Role Model and Pilot cities across the globe to share, highlight and learn about nature based solutions, ecological restoration, biodiversity and climate resilience in urban centres.  Toronto was chosen for our innovative and collaborate approach to ecological restoration, biodiversity planning and urban forest and ravine management.  

Here is a link to the announcement: https://www.unep.org/technical-highlight/world-cities-day-unep-announces-19-cities-restore-natures-rightful-place-urban