The decision might set a precedent, but city council believes it made the right call to waive a financial penalty against a homeowner who removed trees from city property despite thinking they were hers.
Marilee Heron appeared during the March 28 regular council meeting to appeal a letter that city hall sent on Feb. 10. The letter ordered her to pay $600 for cutting down two trees on a city boulevard that she and her late husband, Clint Sanborn, planted after they bought their house on 1526 Hochelaga Street West.
City administration recommended that council uphold the penalty, but council voted 5-2 to waive the fees instead.
Councillors Heather Eby and Dawn Luhning were opposed.
Heron is alleged to have removed the trees between May 23, 2019 and January 2022, a council report said, based on an aerial survey from May 2019, a Google Maps picture from April 2015, and regular inspections by city employees who catalogue trees.
Presentation
Council passed the boulevard bylaw on April 13, 2020, but the two trees were removed in 2019 since Sanborn died in 2016, Heron said. Meanwhile, city hall’s letter says the boulevard measures 9.9 feet back of the sidewalk, but she did not know that, nor did anyone she asked.
While a boulevard between a road and sidewalk is municipal property, Heron was unaware that a boulevard could extend onto a resident’s property — as it supposedly does on hers — when there was no actual “boulevard” in place.
“There are no other trees planted on our street’s ‘boulevard,’ per se. I know that ignorance is not an excuse, but it never crossed our mind that we should inquire about it,” she said.
Heron thought it was her responsibility to cut down the two trees since she and her husband had planted them, she continued. She never realized they became municipal property and couldn’t be pruned or removed.
“Again, it never crossed my mind to inquire since I thought they were my trees,” she said.
City hall also told Heron that it regularly catalogues boulevards and their trees, while it added the homeowners’ trees to the inventory after noticing they had been planted. She argued that the city should have informed them about this development and their new responsibilities instead of sending a registered letter years later.
Heron has two huge fir trees on her property, and with a circular driveway, the two other trees impeded her vision while she backed out. She thought she could have the trees relocated but discovered they were bigger than the city’s maximum diameter requirements.
Moreover, the 25-foot-tall trees impeded her daughter’s ability to see the school bus. Her daughter has down syndrome and needs a special vehicle. However, she missed her ride one time and Heron had to drive her.
Her daughter now takes a van to the Kinsmen Inclusion Centre.
Heron noted that her husband planted thousands of trees across Saskatchewan and Moose Jaw. She added that her U-shaped driveway came with the house when they purchased it and she does not know who installed it.
Council response
Coun. Kim Robinson explained that, through the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, he knew Sanborn and the thousands of trees he planted. The councillor accepted that it was difficult for Heron to remove the trees since her husband had planted them.
While he empathized with city administration about following the rules, Robinson noted that council could forgive this issue since the family had planted many trees over the decades.
“She paid for the stump removal, so I’m not in favour of upholding this,” he added.
This is a unique property with its U-shaped driveway, while this so-called boulevard doesn’t compare to typical boulevards, said Coun. Crystal Froese.
“They (the family) even went as far as trying to inquire about moving these trees, which I can’t imagine how much that would have cost,” she added. “They tried to do due diligence on this, and they obviously definitely have a strong support of growing trees and planting trees here in our city.”
Luhning was concerned that council would set a precedent by waiving these fees and thought Heron should pay half the cost. She noted that other homeowners might face similar situations and would ask for their penalties to be waived.
“These bylaws are in place to protect our urban forest,” agreed Eby. “We live in the middle of the Prairies. We certainly want to do what we can to protect trees.”
Both Mayor Clive Tolley and Coun. Jamey Logan acknowledged that this situation was a one-off since the homeowners planted the trees and cared for them.
One-offs could start a cycle of precedent-setting situations and appeals, replied Luhning.
“I don’t think city council is moving with any sense of caution in this,” she added. “We need to protect our urban forest.”
Froese disagreed with Luhning, saying she didn’t think this would lead to “a barrage of appeals” since this property and the circumstances are unique.
The next regular council meeting is Monday, April 11.
