[CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal request / resolution - Linden

[Peter Shields]

Hello Dan and all,

I have had to deal with those requests for removing trees residents consider nuisance. There may be very negative impacts and unintended consequences of designating such things formally and in policy/bylaw.

I took the approach, in my municipal days, of handling each case individually, instead of blanket statements. Some species on paper look real bad, but in life, can still serve quite a purpose, with real tangible benefits.

I have removed a large walnut on Town property, with several visits, possible solutions, including road permits for parking, variance applications for driveway shifts, and so on. After all, solutions were exhausted. We removed it. Some walnuts we pruned every other year, one, we actually remove walnuts from the tree over the area of impact.

I did create a new policy, etched in the new bylaw, where if a resident wants to remove an otherwise healthy tree, given a low risk rating, it is still possible. They must pay for the compensation value of the tree, plus all removal and stump costs. If we denied the request, they could take it to council.  Council should respect it's staffs experts, but sometimes they may not.

One time I asked a requesting resident to get a signed letter from all residents within sight of the tree...they did! I removed the nasty old Austrian pine.

I would definitely caution against making nuisance policy, for trees (yes though to those noisy kids after midnight...lol). And discourage council from making law, they should only pass proposed policies, from department or industry experts, IMO.

I would advocate for handling each case individually and as they come in.

Toronto made the crabapple a "most wanted" tree unilaterally years ago...still, that trees has many benefits in the right place...

Cheers,
Peter

________________________________
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> on behalf of ebuffie--- via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 11:02:13 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: ebuffie at mymts.net <ebuffie at mymts.net>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal request / resolution - Linden

Hi CANUFET members,

….and thank-you SOS for your email. I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage all urban forestry departments to know and ally themselves with citizen groups like Linda’s and the one I represent, Trees Please Winnipeg. TPW has put in 100s of volunteer hours lobbying the Feds the province and city for better policies and funding for urban forestry. Well organized groups such as ours, dedicated to maintaining, preserving and expanding urban forests as essential natural infrastructure in an urban setting can assist your departments in achieving your goals. We see urban forests and other natural infrastructure as having a key role to play in climate mitigation and we are trying to educate governments and the public about their critical importance.

it would be great if this were a subject discussed at your next national meeting.

best regards,

Erna

Erna Buffie
Chair

[TPW Word Header Final - Thin.png]

On Oct 19, 2023, at 9:39 AM, SOS Trees Coalition via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:

In reply to Daniels inquiry:
A few years ago a city councillor in Saskatoon tried to pass a Nuisance Tree bylaw so that people could more easily have trees removed for many different reasons - fruit on their sidewalks,  ugly tree,  sticky sap, etc.  One of his residents complained that he walked through the sticky sidewalk under the tree and then walked on his carpet and ruined it.  You would think he would have taken his shoes off if he knew he had walked through it!  In any case this was a 2 year battle within city council and many reports written by parks defending the trees.  Our organization SOS Trees Coalition also spent much time talking to councillors so that they understood the ramifications of such a bylaw.  We had our members write letters and we also spoke at a council meeting.  You have to be very vocal with the help of citizens once they understand why this isn't a good idea.
Our council voted it down by a narrow margin, and the trees are safe.........for now.

Linda Moskalyk
SOS Trees Coalition

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:04 AM Daniel Corbett via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>> wrote:

Good morning,

                On Monday October 16th (2023), our City Council heard a deputation from a Citizen requesting removal of this Linden tree due to the hardship it causes them (car and driveway washing – ‘ruined’ paint on the car).  There was, of course, significant correspondence with the Citizen (in advance of council) explaining other options and that we had followed process.  The Citizen was not interested in any option other than removal, which (removal) is contradictory to our bylaws and associated policies.

We have now completed a crown thinning (approximately 30%) to increase air flow and make the tree less habitable to aphids.  Council is deliberating to decide if they should make an exception to our tree bylaw, and allow the removal.  In my view, this could be like opening the flood-gates for any (every) other removal request having to due with ‘undue hardship’ to the home owner.

                Our ‘nuisance-tree issue’ policies are clear on our website and in our Urban-Tree bylaw.  Council may be looking to ‘make an exception’.  At council I was able to identify this decision could impact 150-250 ‘nuisance-tree’ removal requests per year.  If any of you could provide some guidance or support, provide documentation of a similar situation and how it was resolved…etc, I would greatly appreciate it.



The Citizen that made the deputation highlighted examples from Vancouver (which I have not fact-checked) in their deputation, so I can imagine our results could also affect your municipalities in the future.



Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Dan Corbett

<image001.jpg>

The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231019/d24f66e0/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TPW Word Header Final - Thin.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75749 bytes
Desc: TPW Word Header Final - Thin.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231019/d24f66e0/attachment-0001.png>