Editor:
I want to start by saying I am an avid gardener and tree lover. My husband and I moved to the City of White Rock last summer and were so excited to be living in such a beautiful seaside community.
Our backyard has a really pretty cherry tree in the centre of the small yard. This tree is showing signs of disease but, more importantly, attracting a large amount of raccoons to our yard. Obviously, the raccoons are drawn to the endless supply of cherries over the summer months and they frequent our yard nightly.
We are greatly concerned, as we have two small dogs and small children. We decided the best course of action was to apply to the City of White Rock for a permit to take down the tree on our property.
We were told we needed to hire an arborist to give a letter and a report stating the condition of the tree, as well as our reasons for wanting to take the tree down.
So, we employed an arborist to do just that and got a letter outlining the disease and the raccoon issue.
We then looked on the city’s webpage and saw that a ‘Type 2’ permit was $150 to take down a cherry tree of this size. However, when we went to the works yard and administration office, we were charged a whopping $500.
We were told the fees were going up and the website had yet to be updated. How does the permit triple?
Anyhow, we paid the fee and were told we would be contacted in a few weeks time. I had to keep calling and calling – the city has contracted out an arborist company after losing their ‘in-house’ arborist. The new company sent an employee to evaluate the tree. Then they gave us a form stating our arborist needed to measure the trunk diameter to determine how many trees we were going to need to replant in lieu of the one tree coming down, and the new trees’ required height.
After reviewing the sheet, my husband and I were absolutely gobsmacked to learn the city required us to plant five new trees that are four metres in height each.
Did I mention we live on a really small lot on the hillside? We struggle to understand how a city that it so strict on residential height restrictions would encourage homeowners to plant so many large trees on their small lots, eventually eliminating our neighbours’ views and devaluing their property.
To add insult to injury, we were also told we need to pay $3,000 per tree – $15,000 total – to be held in trust. While the bond is refundable upon inspection of the newly planted trees after a year’s time, what middle-class family has $15,000 lying around to be held for a year?
We are so frustrated and saddened by the policy. I think the city is trying to balance the amount of green space on the hill, which we, too, can appreciate, however four trees and four metres in height with a $15,000-bond seems hugely excessive and unfair, especially because there is a safety issue associated.
I would love to see what other White Rock citizens think about this issue.
Kelley McNamara, White Rock
