Re: Drip Line Determination – The Last Appeal of Mother’s Secondary Suite
Listen while you read
Re: Quercus rubra Drip Line – Ontario Land Tribunal – Appeal Dismissed
Tip this act
Further to our correspondence of last Thursday, I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s final decision in Appeal No. 21-OLT-0872. I attended the hearing alone, clutching a binder of site inspection photos and my mother’s floor plans.
The hearing room smelled of recycled air and photocopier toner. A single overhead projector cast the oak tree’s drip line onto a whiteboard — a perfect, unbroken circle rendered in testimony. I recognized our backyard fence, the corner of the garage, the rectangle where the basement stairwell would have daylighted. All of it erased.
The Arborist’s Report
The City’s planner rose first. She read from Policy 3.1.16 with the flat, unhurried cadence of someone who has delivered a hundred compliance orders and will deliver a hundred more. “The drip line is the area beneath the outermost branch. No encroachment. No excavation. No secondary suite trench.”
I had memorized the report. Quercus rubra, age one hundred and ten years, DBH forty-two inches. The arborist’s photos showed sap oozing from a wound where a branch had torn, but the tree was healthy. The tree would outlive my mother’s residency application. It would outlive me.
When my turn came, I did not argue the measurements. I held up the only document I had left: the arborist’s report, its pages softened by rain and what I now admit was tears. I said, “This is the love letter. This is the only correspondence I have from something bigger than me.”
The Chairperson thanked me. The microphone squealed.
Decision
The decision arrived by email at 4:52 p.m. The subject line was exactly what I expected. “Re: Drip Line Determination – Appeal Denied.” I forwarded it to my mother, but she no longer opens attachments from the City.
I am attaching one last site inspection photo. It shows the drip line at twilight, the shadow stretching all the way to the basement window well that will never be dug. The photo is not admissible as evidence, but it is admissible as grief.
This matter is continued to a date to be determined by the oak tree. Notice of continuance will not follow.
