County council gets heated over forestry bylaw update; farmers draft alternative bylaw for consideration

Perth County council will revisit proposed updates to its forest conservation bylaw in April after receiving a final report on months of public consultation that drew significant input from farmers, residents and municipal councils across the county.

At a special meeting Feb. 12, council directed staff to bring back options for a revised bylaw on or before April 2 that incorporate the ideas and concerns raised during the public-input process, which began last year following council’s direction to review the existing bylaw.

“During this period, we received significant engagement across multiple formats. … The consultation revealed the division in community perspectives,” county clerk Tyler Sager told council. “One group strongly supports maintaining or even strengthening forest-conservation measures, citing Perth County’s low forest coverage at nine per cent. Another group advocates for reduced regulation, particularly around agriculture exemption and alignment with provincial standards.

“Both perspectives are rooted in legitimate concerns – environmental protection versus operational flexibility for agricultural landowners.”

The review initially stemmed from work undertaken by the county’s agricultural working group, which compared Perth’s bylaw with those in neighbouring counties and recommended clarifying definitions, adding new definitions such as “windbreak” and “woodlot,” and formalizing an appeal process similar to that used in Oxford County.

Since then, the proposed changes have prompted strong reaction from members of the agricultural community, including a petition submitted by a group of Perth County farmers calling for significant amendments to the draft bylaw.

The petition, signed by residents, landowners and agricultural producers from across the county, calls on council to expressly recognize and exempt normal farm practices protected under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, set a minimum one-hectare threshold for regulated woodlands in accordance with provincial standards and categorically exempt windbreaks and tree plantations from being classified as regulated woodlands to allow landowners to remove, harvest and maintain those trees as they see fit.

“We know the benefits of windbreaks and strategic plantations; the rural community wants the freedom to plant trees,” said Perth South farmer Henry Koskamp, who, along with West Perth farmer Gerald Kolkman, have been leading the charge against many of the proposed changes in the county’s draft bylaw update, going so far as to draft an alternative bylaw, which they’ve presented to county and lower-tier councils over the last several months.

“ … We need the support of the landowners of Perth County (to get more trees planted). As of this morning, we have 274 signatures on the petition with still more coming. They are in support of the agriculturally supported forest conservation bylaw for Perth County. We also need support form the rural farm organizations in Perth County. We have letters of support from the Perth Grain Farmers, Perth Pork Producers, Perth Dairy Producers, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the Perth County Federation of Agriculture, as well as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They’re all supporting the same alternative bylaw, or at least the intent.”

The petition also requests formal biosecurity protocols for forestry officers entering farm properties, protection from enforcement for the routine removal of dead or hazardous trees, reinstatement of stewardship funding to lower-tier municipalities, and the establishment of an independent appeal committee made up of elected officials rather than municipal staff.

Both Perth East and Perth South councils have endorsed the farmers’ alternative bylaw, while West Perth and North Perth councils have not.

On the other side of the debate, Sager told council many who provided input into the bylaw update were in favour of the county’s proposed change in definition for “woodlot,” suggesting reducing the size threshold for a woodlot in the bylaw from one hectare to 0.5 hectares would help protect the county’s already low, nine per-cent forest coverage.

“Forests under professional management generally do better across most forest-health parameters, however, (our) forests also have multiple co-occurring disturbances. This could include windthrow, harvest, pests and disease,” said Maitland Valley Conservation Authority watershed ecologist Erin Guthro as part of a joint delegation made up of representatives from area conservation authorities at the Feb. 12 meeting. “This suggests forest-management practices that puts economic returns over overall forest health will lead to more forest decline over time. … A bylaw provides a minimum standard to level the playing field and ensure practitioners that follow good forestry practices are supported, and this is needed.”

“Woodlots really provide (flood and erosion-control services),” added Nathan Schoelier, stewardship and conservation lands manager at Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. “ … This is going to be most apparent in the coming months … when we have the flow. … You’re going to see a slower, more drawn-out snowmelt in these areas, then you’re going to see ponded water on the landscape. This is water that these woodlots are holding across our entire landscape, not just at point locations like a dam. That’s water that’s no longer rushing toward your infrastructure, whether that’s communities, your municipal drains, or even your private drains, and allows that agricultural drainage to do its job, and allows us to grow the food in those areas.”

Tensions rise amid council discussion

Tensions surfaced at the Feb. 12 meeting when Coun. Rhonda Ehgoetz of Perth East introduced a motion to have council review Koskamp and Kolkman’s proposed bylaw at the same meeting, before staff had an opportunity to consolidate all feedback and present a full slate of options.

“The purpose of this meeting was for council to have an opportunity to discuss the forestry conversation bylaw. I don’t even see that on the agenda,” Ehgoetz said. “Now you want us to send it back to staff again and for them to come up with recommendations. I was hoping that council would come up with recommendations and questions this morning and go through the bylaw and see what we actually want.”

Ehgoetz suggested the process could be drawn out to the point where an updated bylaw won’t be approved by council before October’s municipal election removes council’s ability to vote on it. Instead, Ehgoetz moved to have county council review the farmers’ proposed bylaw line by line to incorporate pieces of it into the county’s draft bylaw.

“Before I ask for a seconder, I will indicate the following observations to my council colleagues,” Warden Dean Trentowsky began before being interrupted by Ehgoetz, who claimed the warden couldn’t comment on the motion before it was seconded.

“I have the chair; you do not,” Trentowsky responded, ultimately issuing two formal warnings to Ehgoetz. “ … I am the head of council. As such, I have a duty under the Municipal Act to inform this council the following. … What your motion entails; you communicated this to us, all of council, in an email prior to this meeting. You communicated it not within the confines of a council meeting. So, my point is this has been done and you’ve brought the motion forward as such. It was communicated outside a meeting last night through an email to all of council.

“I have to raise to all of council’s attention the possibility of the following concerns: perception of a lack of transparency on the conduct of council business, perception of public bias, perception of insufficient fairness of process. These concerns could be under scrutiny by others, perhaps the integrity commissioner, perhaps an ombudsman, perhaps it could provoke a legal challenge for this council and this corporation. I would indicate that the unintended consequences of this motion may result in not being in the best interests of this council.”

After debate around process and timing, council ultimately opted to wait for staff’s comprehensive report, which will outline potential paths forward incorporating the range of submissions received. The updated bylaw, once drafted, will return to council for further discussion and potential approval after all the options are discussed at either the April 2 regular council meeting or a special meeting of council called before then.

Ehgoetz later posted about the dispute between herself and the warden on the Mitchell Life Facebook page, claiming she was unfairly treated in front of her council colleagues and members of the public.

“To me, he is a bully, he embarrassed me, he intimidated council,” Ehgoetz told Grant Haven Media. “ … I think he owes me a public apology. He thinks he was in the right to do what he did to me. I’ve never seen in my 25-plus years someone do that to another member of council in a public forum.”

When reached for comment about his comments on Ehgoetz’s motion, Trentowsky said he couldn’t comment further.

“Following the conclusion of this meeting; out of due respect and consideration for all of my Perth County council colleagues (including Coun. Ehgoetz) and for all of Perth County staff, I feel it is necessary that I withhold providing comments to the media until such time that this matter is fully dealt with at Perth County council.

“I must also withhold providing any comment or response towards any comments (including social media posts) that may be attributed to Coun. Ehgoetz (or others) following the conclusion of the Feb. 12 special council meeting.”