A naturalized garden to the family and a wild and unkept lawn to others, the front grassy-knoll of Karen and Julia Barnes’ home has become a fiery issue in the city of Burlington, Ont. after it was razed pursuant to city bylaws in June.
“I was screaming,” recalled Karen, the homeowner and mother. “It was just a complete panic. I didn’t know what to do. We’re not allowed to interfere because that’s a $100,000 fine. I was just in shock and grief that anyone would do that.”
The issue of the Barnes milkweed-filled garden, which was home to butterflies, bees and other critters, has been going on since 2015. Karen and her daughter Julia had poured hours into it, choosing what to grow and maintaining the property. On June 6th, the garden was cut down.
“They just razed the whole thing down to the ground. It was levelled down to dirt,” Karen said.
The city claims there were noxious weeds and invasive species, while the growth exceeded the 20 centimetres allowed.
The Barnes family started to “let nature take its course” in 2015, with the growth coming in as high as three feet. The city had received multiple complaints from neighbours calling it an eyesore, with some remarking the home looked abandoned.
“In this particular case, communication with the property owner has been ongoing since 2015, with the City previously completing maintenance activities when compliance was not met. Initial notice was given in October 2022 with subsequent discussions up until June 2023 when follow-up maintenance was completed,” wrote Kerry Davren, director of Bylaw Compliance for the city of Burlington.
In 2019, the city took Barnes to court. In 2022, the court found that “failing to remove and destroy all noxious weeds” violated the city bylaws. A city inspector had found bull and sow thistle – which are noxious weeds – on the property when it was inspected in May 2019, and the Barnses were told to remove it by Aug. 20 of that year but failed to do so.
In the court decision, Karen is self-described as an animist who believes that all natural things, such as plants, animals, rocks, and thunder, have spirits and can influence human events.
“You believed nature is sacred. And that moving a plant will hurt it,” reads the court decision.
- Rainiest April on record for Toronto, other cities. What will May be like in Ontario?
- ‘I will never go back’: Ontario family doctor says new AI notetaking saved her job
- Ontario byelections ‘temperature check’ arrives for Ford and Crombie
- TSX flat as oil falls, U.S. stock markets mixed after Fed holds interest rates steady
Despite the decision, the problems between the Barnes and the city persisted. In October 2022, the city sent a notice with a threat of $10,000 every day if they didn’t trim their garden and $100,000 if they obstructed. Then on May 26, they were sent a letter, which the Barnses say they didn’t receive until June 4th, warning them to comply. Two days later, their garden was gone.
The Barnes family said they were diligent in their approach, had experts come in and review how they were proceeding and wanted to have a pollinator garden.
“Being able to grow these wild and native plants, we’ve seen bees and butterflies visiting our garden. We’ve seen endangered monarch butterflies come and feed from the milkweed. And we’ve seen different species of birds that we never saw before we started doing this so that we could, you know, this is one tangible way that we could make a difference,” Julia said.
To Karen, who says she has a masters in ecology, the desire to be environmentally friendly is vital in her household. Still, she felt like she was doing her part through a pollinator garden, which allows and is needed for the reproduction of flowers and plants.
“ I don’t understand why any city would want to eliminate pollinators. They feed us. They sustain us. A lawn is nothing more than an ecological desert,” she said.
While the Barneses say their property was a naturalized garden, the city objects to that claim.
“The issue in this case is not whether the material is ‘natural’ vs. ‘weeds’ but whether the property meets the definition of ‘naturalized area’ – i.e., vegetation that is deliberately planted and maintained,” Davren said.
Therein lies the opposition because, to the Barnes family, it is unequivocally a garden.
The situation has seen countless members of the city emailing, begrudging their decision. Still, Mayor Marianne Meed Ward – who has her own naturalized garden – said the Barneses’ front lawn is not that.
“This particular one does not meet our bylaw, and we’ve been working with them since 2015 to bring them into compliance, help them understand the bylaw requirements. We’ve updated our bylaw requirements, and we still haven’t gotten compliance. So at the end of the day, we just have to say this is not in keeping with our bylaw and so we have to take action,” she said.
Directly across the street from the Barnes live across the Gottzmann family, who have lived in their home since 1994. The two families have been neighbours for nearly two decades, but since 2015, Bruce and Louanne Gottzmann say they’re disgusted when sitting on their front patio looking across the street.
“There hasn’t been any manicuring there. They’re just letting it grow wild right up through the asphalt,” said Bruce Gottzman. “We’re right across the street and we’re having to have to look at this every day, and it’s very unpleasant, very overgrown.”
It’s not just the Gottzmans; next-door neighbours and those near the home have complained to the city. The Barnes family say they know how their neighbours feel, but it shouldn’t trump what they want.
“There have been neighbour complaints, and that’s a big part of this problem. Why should a neighbour be able to tell me what I’m allowed to do on my yard? It’s a constitutional right to be able to express your environmental beliefs,” Karen said.
The family believes that neighbours have been made to believe that a low and trimmed garden is the best look, but are frustrated that people continue to have a say on what’s happening in their home.
“It’s been very frustrating and saddening to see the response from people on our street and from the city of not respecting our choice to do something that different. It looks different, yes, but we live in a diverse society, and we should be able to be different,” Julia said.
But the Gottzmanns claim that not only is it a health risk, but when they’re outside, they regularly have seen it be a safety risk.
“At one point, it was so overgrown; the weeds were growing across the sidewalk, creating trip hazards. We watched someone trip and fall,” they said.
The Gottzmanns say it has less to do with ecology and more to do with lack of effort.
“Just a situation where people don’t want to look after their lawns, and now they’re making excuses for why. If you look at the driveway, weeds growing through who let weeds grow through their asphalt and destroy their investment,” Bruce said.
Not only do they feel it’s destroying their own investment, but as the Gottzmanns think of selling their home, they’re concerned it could affect what they could get for their home.
“It is a genuine concern when we do put this house up for sale that that it will bring down the property value,” Bruce said. “If we do sell it, we might have to sell it in the winter.”
The Gottzmanns said they would sue for damages if the Barnes’ home affected the price of theirs, but Barnes’ lawyer, David Donnelly, said they would be foolish.
“Any claim for damages for living beside an urban natural garden would be bogus,” said Donnelly, a climate-focused lawyer. “The neighbours are entitled to their opinion. They’re not entitled to enforce their own morality or law on their fellow neighbours.”
Donnelly acknowledged the noxious weeds in previous years but said that currently, the property has none. He noted that his client would be pursuing damages against the city of Burlington.
He noted that the city’s bylaw limit to 20 centimetres is not legally sound, and courts have agreed that 90% or Ontario’s native plant species grow larger than this. He added that invasive species is not written in the by-law, and the boulevard, which is part of the concern, is the responsibility of the city, and the attention they’ve focused on this issue could’ve been better spent elsewhere.
“There’s been a huge waste of time and resources over, frankly, nothing,” he said. “I’m really hoping the city can apologize to me and realize they are not consistent with a planet that’s in a climate crisis,” said Karen Barnes.
Comments