Dear Editor,

I am concerned that the proposed revisions to the existing bylaw are, to say the least, an overkill reaction which does nothing to address the problem that the bylaw was initially created for 鈥� that being the 鈥榗lear cutting鈥� of properties that was usually done by developers which I note are not covered under this bylaw according to the information on the TOL website.

As a residential property owner in Brookswood for the past 47 years, I have not noticed any detrimental changes to the canopy, and wonder why these revisions are required at all and also what the seeming urgency is in getting these revisions passed by council ASAP?

It appears that this council鈥檚 objective is to make the removal of a tree as difficult and costly to the homeowner as possible with fees, permits and arborist鈥檚 report costs all on top of our ever-increasing annual tax bill, all of which are required regardless if a tree is dead, dying or wind blown down prior to removal.

The deletion of the option to remove one tree every 24 months further restricts the property owner who should not have to submit a documentation report prepared by a 鈥渜ualified tree risk assessor.鈥�

Who dreams this stuff up?

It鈥檚 time for some new faces and fresh ideas and realistic thinking, all of which this council is lacking.

John Barnard, Brookswood

.

鈥� LETTER: 91原创 Township can鈥檛 see the forest for the trees that would be felled

鈥� READ MORE: 91原创 Township plans to fight heat by adding trees