Perth County council approves further changes to proposed tree-injury bylaw

Perth County council has approved another round of revisions to its proposed tree-injury bylaw as debate continues over how best to balance environmental protection with the practical realities faced by farmers and rural landowners.

At its May 20 regular meeting, council reviewed an updated draft of the proposed bylaw – formerly known as the forest-conservation bylaw – alongside a presentation from West Perth farmer Gerald Kolkman, who has been one of the leading voices advocating for changes to the county’s proposed regulations.

“The crafting of a proposed forest bylaw should incentivize rather than penalize landowners and farmers to plant more trees,” Kolkman told council. “Tree planting will not occur through overly restrictive regulation. This proposed bylaw affects privately owned land; it is not Crown land. Trust and cooperation need to be developed.”

The revised draft follows months of consultation, council debate and public feedback surrounding how the county should regulate the destruction or injury of trees within woodlands while maintaining flexibility for agricultural operations.

Among the most significant changes approved during the latest review was the addition of a formalized appeal process tied to newly created compliance and non-compliance certificates.

Under the revised framework, landowners submitting a notice of intent (NOI) to injure or remove trees would receive either a compliance certificate confirming the proposed work meets the bylaw requirements or a non-compliance certificate if it does not. Those decisions could then be appealed through a peer-review process involving a registered professional forester.

Council also approved a timeline requiring appeal decisions to be issued within 90 calendar days from the date an appeal is deemed complete and received.

The appeal process has remained one of the most heavily debated aspects of the bylaw review over recent months. During his presentation to council, Kolkman argued a structured appeal system involving a committee comprising a registered forester, an agronomist and three members of council, similar to the system several neighbouring counties operate under, would provide greater fairness, transparency and trust for landowners affected by enforcement decisions.

Stefan Zhelev, the county’s executive director of legal/corporate services, told councillors the county could be on legally shaky ground if councillors were seen to be enforcing the bylaw they themselves drafted by serving on such an appeals committee.

“It’s not a good idea to put councillors on that committee, so I guess I can’t look at that favourably,” Coun. Matt Duncan said. “I’m hung up on this whole needing to have a committee at this point because we’ve got five per cent of the applications (that would go to appeal); we’re willing to go to a third party that’s independent of this council that has a code of conduct and has to adhere to that. His job at that point is to look at the bylaw and see if (a notice of intent application) is in compliance with the bylaw. That’s it.

“… He has no mechanism to say, ‘I’m going to make a different decision contrary to the bylaw.’”

Council also approved updated definitions exempting both windbreaks and tree plantations from the bylaw.

The approved changes define windbreaks as one to three linear rows of planted trees and exempt them regardless of size as long as there is 20 metres of separation from the boundary of any woodland, while tree plantations and tree nurseries will also be excluded from regulation under the bylaw, once it is approved by council.

The distinction between woodlands, windbreaks and plantations has been a major focus throughout the consultation process, particularly among members of the agricultural community concerned productive farmland or managed tree plantings could inadvertently fall under stricter regulations.

Council further approved revised language clarifying woodland boundaries on agricultural properties can be determined either ecologically or by the tillage line bordering actively farmed land.

Kolkman and other agricultural stakeholders have repeatedly argued throughout the consultation process that ecological boundaries alone could create uncertainty for farmers dealing with naturally spreading tree growth and seedlings along field edges.

Additional amendments approved May 20 include adding a schedule listing invasive species within the bylaw appendix and refining how biosecurity concerns involving bylaw officers entering private farmland will be handled.

While council agreed biosecurity concerns raised by farmers are legitimate, councillors ultimately decided those procedures would be addressed through internal standard operating procedures for bylaw officers rather than being written directly into the bylaw itself. Staff noted including overly prescriptive restrictions in the bylaw could conflict with provincial legislation governing municipal enforcement powers.

“Part of the challenge with the biosecurity piece (and) council trying to limit the powers of the provincial offences officer or the municipal bylaw enforcement officer is those powers are already laid out in the Provincial Offences Act and the Municipal Act, and acts like the Biosecurity Act already have exemptions for those powers,” Zhelev said.

“To me, the best way to address those concerns in terms of having, let’s say, notification to owners (before a bylaw officer enters their property), for example, or making sure there is some sort of protection gear that they’re wearing so they don’t affect cultivated plants or any other property; the better way to realize that is through standard operating procedure and further instructions to the bylaw enforcement official.”

Council was ultimately satisfied with that response and instructed Zhelev to include reference to standard operating procedures for bylaw enforcement officers within the draft bylaw.

The proposed bylaw continues to focus on regulating the destruction or injury of trees within defined woodlands while encouraging communication between landowners and the county before major tree-cutting activities occur. County staff have repeatedly described the revised framework as an effort to promote stewardship and responsible forestry practices while simplifying the process for most landowners.

The review process began in 2024 after county council directed staff to examine Perth County’s existing forestry bylaw and compare it with regulations in neighbouring municipalities. Since then, the process has generated extensive feedback from conservation authorities, agricultural organizations, municipal councils and residents across the county.

The proposed bylaw is expected to return to county council for further consideration and potential approval at a future meeting following incorporation of the latest amendments approved during the May 20 discussion.