CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Port Halden’s Private Tree Bylaw

A bylaw before Port Halden council would, for the first time, regulate trees on private property. Owners would require a $150 permit to remove any tree whose trunk exceeds 30 centimetres at chest height. Permits would remain available for specimens that are dead, diseased or damaging a building, but owners must in every case plant two replacements or contribute $1,500 to a municipal planting fund.

Councillor Amrit Sandhu, the measure’s sponsor, cites aerial surveys showing the canopy shrinking from 28 to 21 percent in fifteen years, predominantly on private lots where older houses yielded to larger ones. “Planting on public land can’t offset that loss,” she insists. “Without regulation, shade will disappear one lot at a time.” She has, however, ruled out subsidizing owners’ arborist reports.

Doug Tremblay, a thirty-year resident of Orchard Street, regards the bylaw as an intrusion. The silver maple behind his house, nearly a metre across, is reportedly cracking his basement wall with its roots; he would now confront “a permit, a specialist’s report costing several hundred dollars and two trees I never requested.” Though he has planted three himself, he foresees perverse results: “Give people a reason to keep a tree and most of us will. Punish them, and they’ll quietly cut it down before the bylaw passes.”

Marcus Lindqvist of the Port Halden Home Builders’ Association disputes the arithmetic. “Aerial photographs can’t detect thousands of saplings in peripheral subdivisions, tomorrow’s canopy,” he notes. Delays and replacement costs, he warns, will be absorbed into new home prices. His association would reward builders who design around existing trees by expediting their applications.

Urban forester Dr. Helen Okafor shares the councillor’s concern without sharing her confidence. A fifty-year-old oak intercepts more rainwater and casts more shade than dozens of saplings, she notes, which makes a two-for-one formula an odd yardstick. “And how would two inspectors process thousands of homeowners’ applications?” she wonders. Her recommendation: concentrate on redevelopment sites, where most large trees fall, and oblige builders to protect mature specimens during construction. Several neighbourhood associations have already asked to address councillors.

Having watched two old elms on my street fall to make room for triplexes, I am glad council is finally 6. Choose…paying owners who spare their treeslining boulevards with saplingswaking up to canopy losscutting permit fees. Still, details matter. Mr. Tremblay’s basement worry is understandable, but the bylaw 7. Choose…makes allowances for his predicamentapplies only to developersspares any tree planted long agoexempts owners who have planted others, so his permit seems likely. Mature elms, once gone, do not return.

What I cannot accept is Mr. Lindqvist’s contention that 8. Choose…a mature tree beats any newcomerthe rules will inflate house costsbuilders deserve a faster queuesuburbs will offset the loss; a sapling planted today shades nobody until my grandchildren are grown. Dr. Okafor rightly wants the rules aimed 9. Choose…at rotting or ailing treeswhere the bulldozers areat people with spacious yardsat public boulevards, since two inspectors chasing every backyard is a recipe for frustration. To win over such owners, the city might reconsider 10. Choose…raising the $1,500 paymentlowering the trunk thresholdpicking up the specialist’s billdropping the two-for-one formula; a modest sum would buy considerable goodwill.