Proposed amendments to By-Law 2011-123: Being a By-Law to Regulate the Maintenance of Land in the City of Waterloo
In order of appearance in the by-law, we propose the following changes to these definitions under section 1 as they pertain to By-Law 2011-123:
“pests” means rodents, vermin or insects;
Insects should be entirely removed from the definition of “pests”, surely the city does not wish for landowners to completely eradicate all insects on their lot. Rodents include not just the assumed target of problem rats, but other native rodents such as squirrels, chipmunks, flying squirrels, mice, and voles. As it exists the current definition is vague and encourages the use of poisons and pesticides for “pest” control.
The definition for “pests” should be changed to be:
“pests” means Norway Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and/or Roof Rats (Rattus rattus) and/or other rodents shown to be causing damage or infiltrating buildings on said lot or neighbouring lots;
“Undesirable Material” includes:
(c) injurious insects, termites, rodents, vermin, and other Pests;
As stated, “rodents, vermin” is vague and needs specification as well as being redundant as they are included within the definition “pests”. The term “injurious insects” is also vague and could be construed to include all bees, wasps, etc. (regardless of any real harm posed), which is especially ecologically harmful knowing that well over a thousand parasitic wasps call Ontario home and offer a host of services controlling crop pests (i.e. aphids, leafminers, beetles, flies, and caterpillars) (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2009).
Section (c) should read:
(c) insects actively causing property damage (including, but not limited to, carpenter ants, termites, and/or powderpost beetles) and other Pests;
(d) growth throughout the Lot of Turf Grass or vegetation in excess of 20 centimetres (8 inches);
Several studies on the subject of urban ecology relating to the benefits of the practice of No Mow May show that allowing for higher lawn vegetation height and reduced mowing frequency has a host of beneficial effects. These include improved floral and faunal diversity; reduced urban heat island effect; lower lawn watering needs; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; improved habitat for overwintering insects; increased backyard bird diversity; reduced incidences of certain pests, such as ragweed and herbivorous beetle larva, reducing or eliminating in turn the need for herbicide and pesticide use; improved soil development; improved rainwater infiltration resulting in reduced stormwater runoff; and reduced the costs associated with turf grass maintenance through lower labour and fuel use (British Ecological Society, 2019; Del Toro & Ribbons, 2020; Francoeur et al., 2021; Government of Canada, 2021; Ho, 2021; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, n.d.; Selbig & Balster, 2010; Suzuki, 2021; Swann 2021; University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2018; Unterweger et al., 2017; USDA Forest Service – Northern Research Station [USDAFSNRS], 2021; Watson et al., 2020; & Wintergerst et al., 2021). Many of the listed resources here also emphasize the importance of not just refraining or limiting the intensity of mowing lawns, but in naturalizing part or all of one’s yard, especially by planting native plants.
Additionally 1.53m3 increase of vegetation over a four metre-square plot reduced soil temperature by 1°C (Francoeur et al. 2021), which is an important consideration given rising temperatures, particularly during the summer, due to global climate change. 1.53m3 of vegetation volume approximately works out to 38cm of vegetation height.
The argument for changing this part of the by-law is perhaps best stated by Nina-Marie Lister (an ecology and urban planning professor at the Toronto Metropolitan University as well as a consultant for the City of Toronto’s biodiversity strategy), “[The current bylaw] really stands in the way of individual citizens on a small patch of yard trying to do the right thing at a time of biodiversity collapse and climate crisis” (King, 2020) and as argued by Murphy (2021) that “in an ongoing biodiversity crisis, a climate emergency and a reckoning with colonialism, the City continues to place barriers in the way of positive action undertaken by those who deviate from the lawn norm” in their arguments against the, then current, by-laws for the City of Toronto.
Research has demonstrated that long grass will not bring an increased risk of ticks, with a 2019 study finding no ticks among 16 suburban, un-mown lawns over the course of two summers (USDAFSNRS, 2019). Even more, Watson et al. (2020) cites multiple works showing no correlation in grass height and presence of ticks and little evidence for correlation between grass height and rodents. Watson et al. (2020) also states “An increased likelihood of pest fauna should not be assumed in unmown habitats.”
Given the above evidence, we propose the following change:
(d) growth throughout the Lot of Turf Grass in excess of 40 centimetres (15¾ inches). This growth height limit will only be in effect from June 1 through September 30 annually. Lawns, yards, and/or other property that is being converted to a naturalized garden* will not be subject to this growth limit.
*Cities such as Guelph and Toronto have guidelines surrounding naturalized gardens and what they entail, as opposed to a neglected yard/lawn. The Ecology Lab at the University of Waterloo has some great examples of naturalized gardens that can be found online at https://uwaterloo.ca/ecology-lab/naturalized-gardens.
(g) dead, decaying or damaged trees or other natural growth and the branches and limbs thereof;
Dead or decaying logs lying on the ground also serve as essential nesting and overwintering habitat. Leaving these two elements of the urban forest landscape, when safe, offers an essential habitat to countless invertebrates, birds, and amphibians (Jordan et al., 2020). Assuming dead standing trees pose no risk to surrounding structures and are not at risk of falling across property lines, they should be allowed to stand if a homeowner wishes.
With this in mind, section (g) should read:
(g) dead, decaying or damaged trees, branches and limbs thereof, when they pose a risk of falling on neighbouring structures and/or falling across or within 2 metres of a property line. Material that already rests on the ground and is used as a part of a garden and/or as naturalized landscaping does not apply under this definition.
By-Law 2011-123 section 2.4 reads:
(a) every owner or occupant shall ensure that the Naturalized Area does not encroach onto any adjacent property;
To be clearer, we recommend the following definition of "encroach" be included in this By-Law:
“Encroach” means to cross over a property line;
(b) every owner or occupant shall ensure that the Naturalized Area is maintained in a manner that does not present an unkempt or unsightly appearance;
The inclusion of an “unkempt or unsightly appearance” is vague and highly subjective. In the 1996 court case Bell v. Toronto (City) the City of Toronto sought to have Sandra Bell mow her naturalized garden despite her wanting to maintain her yard in a way that was consistent with her environmental values. Justice Fairgrieve ruled that the City’s bylaw enforcing mowing of the naturalized garden when above 20 centimetres was imposing on Bell’s Charter Rights s.2(b), which deals with freedom of expression. The bylaws should only prohibit species that pose a risk or harm to people or the local environment. They should not be so vague that they threaten to violate freedom of expression (Murphy, 2021). One suggestion to assist in delineating between neglected yards and yards being actively naturalized is to have a native plant species threshold of 80%.
Taking this into account, we propose that section 2.4(b) of By-Law 2011-123 be removed outright.
(c) every owner or occupant shall maintain a Buffer Strip around any Naturalized Area;
If our recommendation for section 2.4(a) to deal with possible encroachments is approved, this section would be redundant. Furthermore this section is not reasonable given that the buffer strip defined as 1 metre from all property lines, which is much too large and can become a nearly dominant feature of a property, especially for smaller lots.
I propose the section 2.4(c) of By-Law 2011-123 be removed outright.
In addition to these modifications of the Lot Maintenance by-law we propose adding a new section to section 2.4 regarding complaints of so-called "unkempt" or "unsightly" lawns or gardens. So as to discourage subjective assessment of what this might be, we recommend that the complaint must include reference to a specific “noxious weed” (as already defined within the by-laws) or pests present as well as the physical harm said species of plant or pest pose to property or person.
To assist with public relations around these bylaw amendments, we also recommend that the City of Waterloo's webpage on Trees, weeds and yards be modified to include a link to the Government of Ontario's website which has a complete list of undesirable invasive species including invasive plants. Having this link would make it easier for people to identify undesirable plants that should be removed from their yard.
Proposed changes to city policy and practice
We ask that the city allow the city parks department to evaluate all existing and planned parks for areas that are unused or underutilized to be converted into naturalized spaces such as grass prairie or flower meadow and/or to reach out to neighbourhood associations about interest in creating community gardens in these spaces. These habitats can offer the most in invertebrate biodiversity (Francoeur, 2021) without removing or impeding sight lines and offer educational signage and walking path opportunities.
We also propose that the city change its practice surrounding city owned gardens and landscaping so that all new city gardens, landscaping, and naturalization plantings include a minimum of 80% native plants and/or edible plants (not including turf grass areas).
We ask that the city look into incentives to encourage and financially assist homeowners and businesses to convert their turf lawns into naturalized gardens to assist in rainwater infiltration to help sustain our limited groundwater resources. Naturalized areas offer improved water infiltration over turf grass. Some locales in Arizona and California offer rebates for the removal of turf grass and the installation of naturalized and/or xeriscaped (a form of landscape to eliminate irrigation needs) gardens. The City already does this in part with the Stormwater Credit Program for rain gardens and could include the naturalization of a lawn in conjunction with a rain garden.
We want to thank you for your time in reading our proposal. We hope that as a city we can take these important steps towards increasing biodiversity both on public and private lands to reverse environmental degradation and create healthier ecosystems, address the climate crisis, and generally be better stewards of the land on which we reside on.