ATTACHMENT 1 - STRATA CORRESPONDENCE OCT. 1, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1 STRATA CORRESPONDENCE OCT. 1, 2024

mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca

Dear Mayor and Council:

As President of the Stonecliffe Strata Corporation, I am writing to respectfully request a variance in the application of the View Royal Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 1069, 2022) for our property at 2319 Chilco Road.

Our site was developed over a 3-year period from 2010 to 2012. In that period the property was landscaped prior to the initial unit sales.

In hindsight, it appears that the developer and their landscaper worked hard to make the property look mature and suitable for sales. However, the downside of the developer’s efforts resulted in many trees being hastily planted in locations that are now unsuitable as the trees have matured over time. Roots are threatening infrastructure such as retaining walls, sidewalks, curbs and roadways and crowns are growing against the building envelopes and into gutters.

In 2020 we hired an arborist to complete a Tree Inventory and Management Plan in order to help plan for the future and deal with the legacy of the initial landscape plan.

A few years ago, we applied for and were granted approval to remove a dead, mature Douglas Fir. We met our permit obligation and planted 2 replacement trees on site. Unfortunately, the replanted trees have subsequently died and now need to be replaced (again). We have very poor and limited soil resources on site that likely contributed to the mortality.

Following recommendations in our Tree Management Plan, we applied for and received a permit to remove 6 of the initial plantings and 1 pre-existing, dead arbutus. The 6 initial plantings were recommended for removal by our arborist, due their having “unacceptable location values”. Those trees were initially planted right against the buildings and should never have been planted there in the first place.

As we face the obligation to plant 2 trees for each one removed, we are struck by the unfairness of this 2 for 1 obligation, as it is the opinion of our arborist that the initial plantings should never have been undertaken in the locations that were chosen in the first place.

We are advised by bylaw staff that all the trees on our property are “deemed” as protected trees, covered by the bylaw, even though they should never have been planted in the first place, other than to make the site immediately attractive prior to initial sales. And to “deem” them, thereby creating future obligations, without inspecting their locations at the time of build-out does not seem fair or reasonable.

Our concerns are further compounded by the likelihood that we will need to remove at least 12 to 15 more trees in the reasonably near future as they have poor location values as well.

At the time of our recent permit application, we committed in good faith, to plant 14 replacement trees along a perimeter of our property.

It is also our arborist’s further opinion that because our property has a very minimal soil mantle, having been developed through blasting of bedrock, that we lack suitable locations to meet the 2 for 1 obligation anywhere on our site. Our application was made with the best of intentions to meet the bylaw obligations but we subsequently became aware that the replant location is likely not suitable to support the replants.

Simply put, our property does not have an infinite capacity to plant more and more trees for each one removed. And the cost is in the 10’s of thousands of dollars to meet an obligation arising from initial landscape decisions that should never have been made in the first place.

We know that we can pay the Town of View Royal $500 per tree to find suitable locations in the community for replants. Cost to us would be $7,000.

Current owners are facing significant costs to meet the bylaw requirements as we need to remove trees that should never have been planted in the first place. And this will continue on for many years to come as we also experience the ongoing natural mortality in the mature Douglas Firs and Arbutus that pre-existed on our property.

In a recent site visit with our arborist, it was noted that there has been quite a lot of natural regeneration of native species in the forested perimeter of our property (Western Red Cedar, Arbutus and Douglas fir). We requested that consideration be given to having some of these trees being deemed as acceptable in meeting our replant obligation. Bylaw staff have advised us that this would be precedent setting and they would not consider it.

Our Request to Council

We respectfully request that council reconsider applying the bylaw so rigorously that each removed tree must be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis. We think it would be fair to hold the owners to the duty to replace all the poorly established trees on a 1 for 1 basis and we would pay the Town of View Royal the required $500 per tree to have this done somewhere other than our property (due to no suitable locations for replants).

We also think it would be reasonable for council to send an arborist to look at the naturally regenerated trees on our site to give consideration to them being suitable and acceptable to meet our replant obligations. Please bear in mind that we are likely going to have to remove another 12 to 15 trees in the near future before they become problematic on our property.

Present and future costs to owners are very significant. And it seems unfair to have to spend thousands of dollars have to remedy a problem that should never have arisen in the first place.

Also, it seems reasonable to consider that if we are obligated to replace mature trees that die of natural causes on site, then it would seem fair to consider new, natural regeneration that also occurs on site.

The problem trees that we continue to reference were not part of any decisions taken by the Strata Corporation or any past or present owners. They are legacy decisions made by the developer and existing owners are now being held responsible to remedy those poor decisions at considerable cost and as further compounded by the 2 for 1 requirement in the tree bylaw.

We thank council for their time and consideration and if any additional information is needed, we would be happy to provide that, or if council feels it would be helpful for us to meet council and speak directly to our concerns, we are happy to arrange that as well.

Sincerely,

Chris Smith President, Stonecliffe Strata Corporation

Attachment 1. Example of a tree with an unacceptable location value, planted right against the building. There were 6 trees like this that were removed this year and still many others that will become similar problems in the near future as they continue to threaten infrastructure due to being poorly located in the first place.