Sparks fly around tree protection ideas in Langford

This story was originally published in The Westshore newsletter, January 11, 2022.

Langford council returned to the boardroom Monday night (Jan. 10) for a two-hour meeting with a chock-full agenda and even more opinions.

Discussion got spicy around agenda item 9.3: Trees and Tree Protection Bylaws. Coun. Lillian Szpak brought a motion to start research on a tree protection bylaw, which she suggested would be a progressive addition to the Development Permit process that Langford has used to manage trees on developing land since 1997. About 70% of land in Langford is covered by a development permit.

"Our current process is excellent, it’s very robust and it continues to evolve," Szpak told The Westshore before the council meeting. "Langford was very progressive when we introduced it at the time. We have policies in place for planting, replacement, and frontage improvement, and we’ve planted thousands on thousands of trees."

Yet, things change. As the force of climate change gets ever more in our faces, people are recognizing the need to proactively protect our environment, she said. Tree protection is something Szpak is hearing about from her constituents, and she felt compelled to bring forward a motion to address those concerns.

"I would like to see the City of Langford stand up now and state clearly its values, and state clearly its concern for the environment and the health and wellness of our residents."

The discussion did not go as she hoped.

Coun. Lanny Seaton vehemently opposed the idea of getting the city involved in what he said should be a homeowner’s decision. He talked about the history of Langford as a logging community years ago. "My father was a logger, and I won’t apologize for that. Logging brought a lot of jobs to good people out here," he said. He talked about logging during World War II, and finding old stumps with notches from when the old manual logging methods were used.

"I can’t support a bylaw that comes down on the people of Langford," Seaton repeatedly concluded.

Mayor Stew Young was also viscerally against the motion, repeating several times that he would not support charging residents "$2,000" to get permission to remove a tree, and cost the city $1 million a year. (A "$2,000" fee was not mentioned in the motion.) "What we’re doing here is creating red tape and bureaucracy," he said.

He reiterated several times that the development permit process that manages developing land is working well. "That’s not a problem. There’s no problem there."

The development permit process covers most of the land in Langford. Since 2004, a condition of development is to transfer 40% of previously undeveloped land to Langford as a public amenity. Young argued this transfer has protected trees and has added valuable parkland for residents.

"I agree that the development permit process works well," Coun. Denise Blackwell said. "But I see no issue with getting more comments, and having a look at what other municipalities do."

After the motion was defeated—Blackwell and Szpak voted in favour—Young introduced his own "tree management policy" motion, and directed staff to look at a policy for the 30% of privately owned land. He insisted several times that this bylaw should not be punitive or bureaucratic. That motion passed unanimously.

"If you truly want to save the trees on your land, come forward to the city and put a covenant on it, and we will do that for you," he said, ending the meeting.

At one point Seaton challenged Szpak’s family connections, suggesting she had a conflict of interest because her daughter-in-law is part of a Facebook group called Langford Voters for Change, a public group where residents discuss bylaws, development permits, and more.

Szpak found it inappropriate that Seaton would invoke her family and attempted to suggest that council needed a code of conduct. She was interrupted, loudly, by more than one council member. Coun. Matt Sahlstrom accused her of being in touch with Langford Voters for Change members during the meeting—Szpak said she was apologizing via email to a caller who had been cut off by Young during public participation—and Young accused Szpak of feeding talking points to callers.

No further motions came, but if you want some light political entertainment, consider watching the last half hour of the meeting.