Dear editor:

Earlier in July, I watched in disbelief as council voted against its own tree bylaw.

I have no issue with bylaws being amended but there is a correct approach to do this and it isn’t to simply vote against the bylaw case by case while leaving the bylaw in place.

Homeowners seeking to remove a protected tree appealed to council for relief from the required deposit and replacement-tree planting, arguing the costs were a hardship and that they lacked space for more trees.

Even after some of the councillors reminded Couns. Erwin Wiens, Tim Balasiuk, Wendy Cheropita, Andrew Niven and Adriana Vizzari of their obligation to uphold the bylaw as written, their personal opposition to it shaped their decision and not the facts of the actual case.

These five councillors voted down the motion, with Wiens then introducing a new motion to waive all but $50 of the fee and remove all other obligations saving these homeowners thousands of dollars.

He did this after stating “the best people to decide in our town is the resident that owns the house.” Very noble indeed, but if this council opposed the bylaw so strongly, why didn’t it amend or repeal it when it reviewed it in late 2025?

This is not about personal property rights, government interference or protecting the tree canopy.

It is about council deliberately ignoring its own bylaw and creating unequal treatment for the residents it supposedly represents: some homeowners pay fees and plant replacement trees in good faith, while others, it turns out, can appeal and be exempt from the law as written. Ridiculous.

I encourage anyone affected by this unequal treatment to write to council, especially councillors Wiens, Balasiuk, Cheropita, Niven and Vizzari, for their support in directing the town staff to refund fees paid and remove future obligations as laid out in the bylaw to avoid any appearance of bias or hypocrisy.

It created this problem; now it is responsible for fixing it for everyone, equally.

Kenton Needham
NOTL