Town Clerk Donna Beal presenting draft bylaw on residental vegetation
At its next regular meeting on February 4th, Tantramar Town Council will consider enacting a bylaw to regulate vegetation on residential properties.
“Accumulation of dead grass on previous years’ growth provides a real threat to our fire departments and residents if a fire occurs on the property or structures through dead undergrowth,” Town Clerk Donna Beal said on Monday as she presented a draft bylaw that was requested last September by Councillor Matt Estabrooks.
“Properties with un-mowed lawns influence appraisers or potential buyers and subsequently lower neighbouring property values,” she added, noting that such vegetation can also provide habitat for rodents and other wildlife.
Beal mentioned that other municipalities have enacted such bylaws including Moncton, Dieppe, Riverview and Shediac, but the one proposed for Tantramar does not contain height restrictions on tall grasses.
“The draft bylaw for Tantramar focuses more on the maintenance of property for the health and safety of the residents of Tantramar,” she said.
Mixed reaction
“I don’t know if I’m overly excited about a vegetation bylaw,” said Councillor Josh Goguen, “just because of the simple fact that some people do have natural gardens.”
He recalled a court case a few years ago in which a neighbour, displeased with the look of a neighbouring lawn, took it upon himself to mow it even though it was being maintained as a natural pollination site for bees.
Councillor Josh Goguen
Goguen also pointed to a section of the draft bylaw that requires residential properties to be free of “poisonous or noxious species.”
“How are people to know which is noxious or invasive?” he asked.
Mayor Andrew Black responded that there may need to be ongoing education about which plants are noxious or poisonous adding that the word “invasive” was deliberately left out of the draft bylaw.
He noted that Japanese Knotweed is neither noxious nor poisonous, but is an invasive plant that could cost homeowners hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove.
“Imposing that on people would be incredibly difficult to do,” Black said.
“We do not want to deter people from having wildflowers on their properties,” said Town Clerk Beal, adding for that reason that neither the words “lawn” nor “height” appear in the draft bylaw.
Safety concerns
“I also had some worries originally about this bylaw,” said Councillor Michael Tower, “but I think it’s really the spirit of the bylaw we’re looking at and as long as we maintain the fact that this is for safety and not necessarily to drive off wildlife, I think that’s why I find it easy to support this.”
Councillor Allison Butcher
But Councillor Allison Butcher referred to a section of the draft bylaw that says lawns or other vegetation on residential properties must be maintained in a way that “does not encourage habitats for rodents and wildlife.”
“I get it that we want to lower the possibility of fire spread, but I do worry about over-wintering animals and things, so I guess we have to place the faith in our bylaw officer to use the right judgment when we perhaps, have someone who is complaining about a neighbour’s property just because it doesn’t happen to be visually pleasing,” she said.
“I’m going to place my faith in the bylaw officer here,” Butcher said with a chuckle, “to make sure that this is done in the right spirit.”
But Councillor Debbie Wiggins Colwell expressed her concerns about leaving enforcement up to a bylaw officer’s discretion.
“I am having a hard time with this,” she said, adding that people should be free to grow vegetation on their properties that provides habitat for bees and other creatures even including mice that share our natural environment.
Councillor Bruce Phinney noted that issues concerning tall grass are perennial council topics.
“We’ve been talking about this for a long time in the 20 years I’ve been on here,” he said.
When Phinney asked if there had been any complaints about tall grasses or other unruly vegetation, Clerk Donna Beal responded that while her office had not received any complaints, she believed some councillors had.
At the end of council’s 16-minute discussion, Deputy Mayor Matt Estabrooks moved a motion, seconded by Councillor Tower, to send the draft bylaw to the next regular council meeting on February 4th.
The motion carried with only Councillors Phinney and Wiggins Colwell voting against it.
To read Donna Beal’s presentation to council and the proposed draft bylaw, click here.
For previous coverage in 2018 when Sackville Town Council decided against enacting a tall grass bylaw and a Sackville homeowner was forced to chop down her permaculture garden to avoid $1,000-a-day fines, click here.
To read a guide for Canadian municipalities in crafting bylaws for biodiversity that was produced by Toronto Metropolitan University in collaboration with the David Suzuki Foundation, click here.
I find it quite shocking that if a homeowner ANYWHERE in the Municipality of Tantramar does not comply with this proposed by-law, that the MINIMUM daily fine imposed will be $140 starting the day the By-Law Officer’s ticket is issued and will continue at that rate until the homeowner complies. So, if one cannot comply for 30 days then the MINIMUM fine will be $140 times 30 days, or $4,200.
The MAXIMUM daily fine is set at $1,100 and after 30 days of non-compliance then that allotted fine would then tally $33,000. This extremely hardnosed approach against our citizens is in section 5b and 5c of the proposed by-law. And — compliance will be left up to the discretion of the By-Law Officer.
What the heck is happening to the peace and harmony that I hoped would be the result of the amalgamation? We have enough problems going on south of our border right now without things like this being thrown into our daily lives.
My biggest concern about this proposed bylaw is the fact that there is too much left up to the discretion and personal interpretation of whomever is employed to enforce our municipal bylaws. Because of this, there is no means to ensure consistency when that particular role is subsequently taken on by a replacement employee.
Without clear written guidelines, no two individuals are ever likely to interpret it in the same way. Therefore, the application of this bylaw would see changes from time to time, depending on who the Bylaw Officer happens to be.
Also, human nature being what it is, a person might choose to overlook some portions of the bylaw due to personal bias, or influence.
Therefore, I feel that this bylaw would need more specific guidelines and examples, at the very least, in order to prevent it from being misinterpreted, or from being interpreted differently from one instance to the next. It’s not enough to nonchalantly say “Oh, we know what it means”.
We need to remember too that this bylaw would apply to the entire municipality of Tantramar, including even the remotest rural corners. So, if we are to have such a bylaw, it would definitely need to be clear and concise enough so that all who read it will understand it in the same way.
As with ANY law, there should be absolutely nothing left to personal interpretation. Traffic laws, for example, are very clear and apply to every motorist equally. Bylaws for a municipality should not be any different.
I just sent the following letter to Mayor & Council, the CAO and the Town Clerk:
I am writing to urge you to reject the proposed Bylaw Related to Vegetative Growth in Tantramar. I am worried that as written, the bylaw could be used to target and cut wildflowers, pollinator gardens, and native species desperately needed for the survival of insects, butterflies, and birds that rely on larvae for food.*
It is particularly clauses 3(a) iii, iv, and v that cause me concern.
Without a definition of poisonous or noxious species, the bylaw applies to most garden plants (lily of the valley, bleeding hearts, foxglove… they’re all poisonous!).** More likely, it could target native wildflowers and weeds like swamp and common milkweed, common boneset, fleabane, and others needed by native caterpillars, many of which then support bird populations that will eat only certain caterpillars to feed their young.
Clause 3(a)iv is also problematic because in many cases, dead vegetation and seed-heads are needed to feed and shelter birds and insects. Similarly, clause 3(a)v, prohibiting vegetative growth that provides habitat for rodents and wildlife, is potentially harmful to birds, snakes, toads and countless creatures.
The Town’s report to Council states “no environmental implications anticipated with this proposal” and says the bylaw is neutral on the Town’s Climate Lens checklist. I disagree, and see this bylaw as moving away from the sustainable processes, thriving natural assets, and climate leadership against which all bylaws must be evaluated (pg. 30, Jan. 27 Council Package).
We need more wild spaces and habitat for wildlife. Our yards and gardens are a great place to “go native and go natural,” as entomologist Doug Tallamy urges.***
If the bylaw is intended to target potentially dangerous situations (e.g., vegetation hindering sidewalks, traffic, visibility), and not to target yards for questionable cosmetic reasons, then it needs to be significantly revised.
Finally, the steep penalties listed in 5(c)ii would make it prohibitively expensive to challenge the bylaw if one is found in violation.
*See, for example, Butler, C. (2022, August 2). Weed or habitat? Ontario cities must ‘rethink’ their approach to yard complaints, says lawyer. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-pollinator-gardens-monarch-butterfly-1.6534696
**See Canadian Child Care Federation. (2025). Toxic Plant List. https://cccf-fcsge.ca/ece-resources/topics/child-health-safety-environment/toxic-plant-list/
*** See Adler, J. (2020). Meet the ecologist who wants you to unleash the wild on your backyard: Fed up with invasive species and sterile landscapes, Doug Tallamy urges Americans to go native and go natural. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/meet-ecologist-who-wants-unleash-wild-backyard-180974372/
Bravo Laura. Thank you for this input.
For myself, while I maintain my lawn for the most part, I DO have a part that at one time was intended to be a garden, now I’ve let grow wild with whatever plants managed to take root. It’s in the back yard, out of sight, and yet would that fall under this by-law? Likely not but then again…
As I mentioned in another article, it almost seems like Tantramar wants to go the route of the HOA (Home Owners Associations) you hear of in the US, where everything people do in a neighbourhood (or in our case, town?) is going to be heavily scrutinized and if you don’t comply, fines will come until you ‘get it right’. In the end, every property will be nice and pretty and as alike as can be…
(I admit that’s likely an extreme view of things; then again…)
While I do understand the concerns over risks of fires (especially now with Climate Change) and wildlife maybe being a problem, there needs to be room for other solutions than tape measures and opinions of by-law officers about what is ‘proper’ for the town.
How is this going to be enforced when the by-law officer/s can’t even enforce existing by-laws? And how is it going to be enforced on rural properties that are surrounded by hayfields and crop fields and wild meadows and the Tantramar Marsh? Do you know how impossible it is to discourage “rodents and wildlife” when you live across from a farm and in front of a corn field and beside the marsh???? Not to mention, what do you mean by “wildlife”? Deer? Skunks? Rabbits? Foxes? Butterflies and caterpillars? This is a totally ridiculous by-law for a largely rural municipality. I can’t even believe you are putting time and energy into considering it, when we have so many other real issues in this municipality.
Naturalized yards being challenged on the basis of property values? I’ll write a longer well cited letter to town council about the benefits of wild yards. In the meantime, I’ve just got to publicly shake my head. We’ve put a lot of time and money and love into converting dying shrubs and patchy grass into a wildish space that is attracting more pollinators and birds. Our property value… is not suffering. It’s rising at an alarming rate. Haven’t we all been complaining about the increases in our property tax? And about the affordability of housing? Seriously, get off my lawn. (Or what remains of it, lol)
There is no consideration about climate change by our council in this move. All that extra lawn-mowing is bad for the environment. As Laura noted, certain animals need native vegetation. Bumble bees hibernate under dead leaves, as do fireflies. Will ‘No Mow May’ continue into 2025 so that we can better care for the many small creatures that inhabit our town? Once again, I am disappointed with some members of our council and the staff who are supposed to make Tantramar a better place for everyone, not just prettier for property valuations. Devolving the decision-making to enforcement officers is an abrogation of this council’s authority.
As I understand it, sounds like this potential new bylaw has similar criteria to the existing bylaw for an unsightly premises (possible fire hazard, attractive to wildlife inhabitants, bothersome to neighbours, discouraging to prospective homebuyers in the area, potential noxious elements, etc.
The unsightly premises bylaw seems also to be enforced on the discretion of the bylaw enforcement officer. And it certainly is not an easy situation to enforce for various reasons. But there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Other communities also have this bylaw and are having to deal with the same challenging scenarios. Amherst recently took a wrecking crew on to a property and demolished a home that the owner had badly neglected. A bold move after countless attempts to encourage the owner to do something reasonable.
And now there is the senario in downtown Sackville where three perfectly fine buildings and neat properties with interesting local histories and heritage character are about to be destroyed to make way for a very large new building with no charming features and no attempt made to fit into a small town where respect for heritage character has long played an important role in development.
And we are, collectively, rewarding that.
Yes, irony abounds…
Thank you for this important reporting, Bruce!
Here is my letter to mayor and council in case it’s of interest. I encourage anyone who has concerns about this bylaw to write one too.
Dear Mayor and council,
I am writing to you regarding proposed bylaw 2025-17. There are many reasons why I strongly disagree with this bylaw and believe it would be harmful to our community. Below is an overview:
Eliminating poisonous or noxious species: this is impossible and therefore should be removed from the bylaw. To start off, how would you define a “poisonous” species? Here are a few examples to illustrate what I mean:
For instance, potato plants are actually poisonous (though we can eat the tubers!), and so are the leaves of the rhubarb plant (even though the stalk is fine). A number of common native plants and popular garden plants are also poisonous or have poisonous parts as well as beneficial parts.
Similarly, the word “noxious” is also a problem. Noxious according to whose definition? We can all agree that Giant Hogweed, for example, would be a plant worth keeping out of our yards, but some people believe that dandelions are “noxious” (they are harmless and 100% edible, from the roots to the flowers).
Clearing away dead vegetation: most vegetation die-off happens after the first frost, in the fall. The period between the first frost and snow cover is generally quite short and not a time of year with a high risk for fire. In spring and summer, our area is generally quite damp, and vegetation is lush. Instead of restricting the type of vegetation people can have in their yards, it would be wisest to encourage people to plant vegetation that retains water (many native species of plants, trees and shrubs do this) and limit the amount of lawn and grasses. Kentucky bluegrass (the non-native species of grass found in most lawns) is not drought-tolerant, requires a lot of watering and doesn’t retain water well. Lawns are not a good choice for a changing climate, and contribute to biodiversity loss.
A much better idea to improve fire safety in Tantramar would be to provide incentives for residents to plant rain gardens. These types of gardens help retain water and also help reduce flooding by absorbing the water and letting it slowly seep into the ground.
Furthermore, research shows that incentives are more powerful than punishments. I would urge the council to consider this if you are truly concerned about reducing fire risk in our community.
Reducing habitat for rodents and other wildlife: The number one most effective solution to keeping rodents out of buildings is to plug holes and gaps within the building’s structure. Removing vegetation around a building will not deter determined rodents when the temperatures dip below freezing. If there are holes in a building, they will come in.
Regarding “other wildlife”: since when are they not welcome in our community? Sackville prides itself in its beautiful waterfowl park and great network of trails. Maintaining habitat for birds, butterflies, bees, squirrels and chipmunks requires a commitment to leaving some areas wild. Mice are also part of that ecosystem and have a role to play in nature. Eliminating habitat for beneficial wildlife because of the negative effects of a few species is an unacceptable and inappropriate solution.
No environmental implications: This is blatantly untrue. Reducing wildlife habitat is bad for natural assets, sustainable processes, climate change adaptation, emissions reductions, stormwater management and climate leadership.
This bylaw would directly harm animals that are beneficial to all residents of Tantramar by reducing their habitat and food sources.
Some of the animals that would be harmed include:
• Bats: a single individual Little Brown Bat can eat hundreds of mosquitoes in one night, reducing the risk of mosquito-borne diseases.
• Butterflies, bees and bumblebees need dead vegetation to complete their life cycles. These organisms are pollinators; without them, many vegetables in our gardens would not bear fruit.
• Birds need all kinds of foliage, grasses, shrubs and dead trees to forage and hide. They directly benefit humans by eating harmful garden pests and some species help control the rodent population. Birds have also been shown to improve people’s mental health.
Aesthetics: Aesthetic considerations are highly subjective. Therefore, it is also highly inappropriate for a bylaw to be based on these considerations. Whose idea of aesthetics are we prioritizing? Not everyone likes sterile, manicured lawns. Many people enjoy colour, a diversity of foliage and types of plants where birds can forage and nest. Forcing everyone into conformity is, frankly, too controlling.
Finally, I wish to draw your attention to one last key point:
The city of Dieppe recently removed their bylaw that limited lawns to a 20 cm height. They were provided with the legal advice that “aesthetic criteria for lawn maintenance are arbitrary and unconstitutional”. I would suggest that Tantramar Town Council find out more about Dieppe’s approach, which is dedicated to helping create more natural spaces in an urban environment, while complying with directives issued by the fire department.
In closing, I trust that town council will do its due diligence and carefully consider the negative effects of such a bylaw.
I agree with Laura, Dodie, Harold, Mira, and others above who point to the many flaws of this draft bylaw. When operationalized, there is a pretty large gap between Councilor Tower’s naively optimistic ‘spirit of the bylaw’ and many of its details, especially when it needs to be enforced by a summer student employee bylaw officer during the lawnmowing season. Additionally, one might ask, cui bono? Seems like this bill is a boon to landscaping companies who, inadvertently, are vectors of Japanese knotweed spread.
Part of this repeats what I had posted on her previously, but here is the letter which Percy and I emailed today to Mayor and Councilors, along with the CAO, the Clerk, and the Treasurer of Tantramar.
* * * * *
We submit this letter to speak against the proposed Bylaw # 2025-17, a bylaw concerning vegetative growth in Tantramar. We’re aware you have received other letters as well, covering various concerns related to the problematic amounts of the fines, the potential negative impacts on providing food and shelter for small animals and insects – including the highly valuable pollinators which ensure our food crops will flourish, and other environmental and social concerns.
REALISTIC COMPARISONS ? …
Over the past number of years, we have seemingly been patterning our bylaws, our tax incentives, and other such things on what they do in Moncton and other nearby communities. While it is fine to admire the way they set their priorities and manage their neighbourhoods, we question whether that is a realistic model for our community to follow.
For example, our Municipality of Tantramar covers 704 square kilometres, while Moncton’s area is only 140 square kilometres. Tantramar’s population is 9000, compared with Moncton having 79,000 residents. (Figures rounded for simplicity, obtained from Wikipedia). Therefore Tantramar has 5 times the geographic area of Moncton, with only 1/20th of their population. Their population density is therefore approximately 100 times greater than ours.
This huge difference clearly emphasizes the fact that we are a very rural community, and our bylaws need to reflect that. They must be tailored to our specific needs, not just patterned after what is followed in larger centers. What works for a high-density metropolitan area will seemingly not scale down to a community such as ours, and it would probably be more fitting to compare ourselves with other similar rural communities.
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON OUTLYING AREAS …
With amalgamation in 2023 came the need to review and revise existing bylaws in both Sackville and Dorchester, so that all bylaws would then apply to all areas of the new municipality of Tantramar. Therefore this proposed bylaw would need to fit into that intended model. As the draft is currently written, however, it would appear to be directed primarily to the downtown core area of Sackville, and somewhat to the central portion of Dorchester. It doesn’t appear to be consistent with the reality of life in the outlying areas.
It was noted in the discussion at the last council meeting that this proposed bylaw would be applicable to ‘just residential properties’, but those ‘residential properties’ are scattered throughout Tantramar, and not just in the ‘downtown core’ areas. From Anderson Settlement to British Settlement, from Cookville to Rockport, from Point de Bute to Dorchester Cape, and all points in between, the potential impact of such a bylaw on those completely rural properties needs to be realistically evaluated.
To threaten rural residential property owners with potentially massive financial penalties for not complying with this proposed bylaw would be seen as being unjust and very unfair, while the roadside vegetation in those areas is left largely unchecked.
Even though the maintenance of roads in the outlying areas falls under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Dept of Transportation and Infrastructure (DTI), the Municipality has a role to play as well, by ensuring that DTI is made aware of the areas which need to be cleared, and by following up with them on an ongoing basis to ensure it is adequately maintained. Now that residents of those outlying areas are included under the Tantramar ‘umbrella’, they should not be required to contact DTI on their own – should not that ‘service’ be provided to them?
INTENTION ? …
The stated intent of amalgamation was to simplify, not to further complicate municipal matters. Given that this proposed 2-page bylaw is basically just an offshoot of the already existing 12-page bylaw for Unsightly Premises, we question why Council would wish to add this specific control measure over what residents can or cannot do, or grow, on their properties. The question could also be expanded to consider who might stand to gain from instituting such a bylaw.
We feel these are important questions, and need to be examined carefully by all Council members before the addition of this type of restriction to the citizens of Tantramar.
If this bylaw were to be passed, in all fairness we question whether we would then require a further additional bylaw to monitor the municipal maintenance of roadside vegetation, where visibility is frequently hampered by serious overgrowth. If there is to be such a stringent rule for individual properties to adhere to, then the Municipality must also set a positive example for residents to follow. Without such municipal leadership, this proposed bylaw would appear to be a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
In addition, it must be considered how many additional bylaw officers would be required to adequately cover our entire municipality, for this and all other bylaws that are currently being reviewed and revised.
INTERPRETATION …
Finally, we find it extremely disconcerting that there is far too much in this proposed bylaw which would depend on the discretion of a single individual.
The written guidelines in the draft for this proposed bylaw are somewhat vague and certainly lack clarity, which results in the need to be interpreted by whomever is in charge of enforcing such a bylaw. This means there is no assurance that the rules would be applied fairly and evenly to all residents in all parts of Tantramar. In addition, there is no means to ensure consistency or continuity when a different person eventually takes over that role, or if there are multiple bylaw officers at any particular time.
Without clear written guidelines, no two individuals are ever likely to interpret it in the same way. Therefore, the application of this bylaw would likely be handled in various different ways over time. Also, human nature being what it is, a person might choose to overlook some portion(s) of the bylaw due to personal bias, or lack of understanding, or influence.
Therefore, we feel that this bylaw, if it is even needed at all, would require much more clear and concise language, at the very least, in order to prevent it from being interpreted differently from one instance to the next. It’s not enough to nonchalantly say “Oh, we know what it means!”. The wording in the document must be clear enough so all who read it will understand it to mean the same thing.
As with ANY law, there should be absolutely nothing left to personal interpretation. Traffic laws, for example, are very specific and easy to understand, and apply equally to every motorist, everywhere. Bylaws for a municipality should not be any different.
We thank you for taking the time to read this letter of concern, and we implore Council to consider all of the potential ramifications of such a bylaw, being submitted by numerous residents, before you make your decision.
Sharon Hicks
Percy Best
I have just sent the letter below to the Councillors and to the Mayor….
I have very serious concerns about the draft by-law to regulate vegetation on residential properties.
As a long-time home owner in Sackville, as a resident who is deeply concerned about climate change and eager to continue to do whatever we can in our small ways to alter it’s earth-shattering course, and as someone who lives and breathes the arts and who delights in the natural beauties of vegetation — I join many others in this regions who are calling on Council to halt the process that you have just initiated, and to take a few steps that may change your present intentions.
The first thing I would urge is that you take a good look at this insightful publication. I have copied the link below. Almost every concern that I have about the proposed bylaw the way it has been presented, can be found in this publication. The pitfalls that well-intentioned municipalities fall into over and over again are raised and fully discussed here, and simple steps are outlined to help new municipalities to avoid making these same mistakes.
Just three pertinent examples (that I think need to be done by Council) are: 1) the importance of early on seeking out meaningful consultation with knowledgeable stakeholders in the community and together discussing and planning a way forward so that their expertise has been heard. 2) crucially important to the success of any bylaw is the wording of the the bylaw so that it is clear and unambiguous, and 2) how important it is to have a well-thought-out plan for the training of by-law officers so they know when the by-law is being broken.
A link to a guide for Canadian municipalities in crafting bylaws for biodiversity that was produced by Toronto Metropolitan University in collaboration with the David Suzuki Foundation is available at the end of Bruce Wark’s article. (This is that incredibly insightful document I referred to.)
I would also suggest that Council’s approach here could benefit from some rethinking. The way the bylaw has been proposed sounds threatening and punitive in nature. I suggest that instead of a bylaw which for all sorts of reasons is not needed in this municipality (and there are letters galore by local residents — experts in ecology, climate change, and so on, which cite these reasons so no need for me to repeat them here) the Council might look towards adopting an entirely different approach, one which rewards intentional property management, which supports wildlife, offers an abundance of greenery, flowers and shrubs, and does so in a way which creates a beautiful, artistic, thriving mini-environment which will help the earth.
Imagine if Council chose to raise awareness of the link between our “gardens” and the environment by offering a plant-prize each year to the most ingenious and creative environmentally aware gardener, as well as smaller plant-prizes to those who are just starting out and showing promise. Imagine if a group of 3 persons who are already well-known in the community for their amazing gardens and green spaces — there are so many such persons in Sackville! —were engaged by the town each year to go around to look at the green-spaces of entrants, to engage in talking with them and other interested residents standing by about what is wonderful about these gardens, and offer ideas and tips for enhancement and growth in the future to the newbies. It would encourage others to try it themselves! It could be a yearly celebration of exactly what we should be encouraging in Tantramar, rather than a punishment for not obeying a bylaw.
I think returning to the bylaw and entirely rethinking your approach is in order.
Thanks for listening!
Janet Hammock
Hugelkultur … may look ‘unsightly’ but happens to be a very good use of materials.