[CANUFNET] tree protection

[Naomi Zurcher via CANUFNET]

To get back to the by-law construct itself, it is critical that any inclusion of Standards, Procedures, BMPs or the like, are as Appendices and not in the by-laws themselves.

Inside the legislated by-law, one should have a reference to any and all current Standards, etc by name including supportive requirements for related Departments, e.g. the Building Department and the issuance of permits, but the specifics need to be appended. For example, if Canada has a Standard for Nursery Tree Production, the name of that Standard, noted as the most current version, should be in the by-laws and the actual Standard as an Appendix.

Most municipalities allow for the appendices to be updated by the relevant Department or Agency as new Standards, BMPs, etc are researched and published. This would facilitate keeping the by-laws current without having to re-legislate the entire by-law.

naomi
On Jan 18, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Amelia Needoba via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:

> Hi Michelle,
> To add to what many others have said, the bylaw or policy is an important piece but the actual administration and enforcement process is just as important. From my experience working on the inside, the following process can be reasonably effective regardless of whether or not you are administering a private tree bylaw, or just a city tree protection and removal policy:
> Arborist report and tree survey must be submitted with the initial application for subdivision, development, demolition or building permit. The report and tree survey must include all protected on-site trees/off-site trees whose tree protection zones cross into the subject site, and city trees of any size on the boulevards or within 4 m of the subject site property line.The report must provide adequate detail to make a judgement on retention suitability/SULE in the context of the proposed development plans (Surrey has great guidance on standards and content).
> The city arborist is referred the file at that initial application stage and provides comments related to retention value and tree protection to the planner on file at the same time as all other city departments. Conversations with planning and engineering are had about trees suitable for retention to check that redesign options are available within the zoning/servicing etc. bylaws and then the request is made for redesign to work around tree root zones. 
> The design may be asked to work around a tree or, if for subdivision, a covenant may even be placed on title to prevent building on the root zone. Redesign requests may be made and the onus on coming up with the solution should be on the applicant's Project Arborist all while ensuring that the applicant is still able to achieve what is permitted under zoning and other city bylaws (acceptable practices may include things like adjustments to the foundation such as notches out of the basement level and first floor cantilevered over the root zone, blind form foundations to reduce the extent of over-excavation, relocation of services, building hardscape above grade and/or with permeable pavement, variances to set-backs/height/access/garden suite placement). In some cases, redesign won't be feasible/justifiable and removal may end up being the appropriate outcome. If removal is more often the outcome, other city policies may need to be amended to provide better options for tree retention.
> Once design is satisfactory for tree retention, protection and replacement securities are assessed and should be of an amount that reflects the value of the trees and functions as an incentive for developers to properly work around trees (i.e., a deterrent to damage). 
> For city trees, taking the CTLA assessed value and i-Tree value can add up to very serious amounts and increase the financial incentive for retention. A bond for that value can be held for tree protection. If removal is going to be permitted, then the developer should pay the cost of removal and the assessed tree value to the city to fund compensatory planting at that location or elsewhere (acts as further incentive to work around city trees rather than assume they are disposable in the design process).
> Private tree protection and/or replacement securities, or city tree protection bonds, are held for a period of time and their release is attached to proof that the applicant adhered to planned protection measures and permit conditions as supervised and documented by a Project Arborist. If any non-compliance issues are observed, stop-works and fines are issued, and ultimately securities/bonds are partially or entirely kept (usually much larger amounts than maximum fines).
> Only once the securities are paid and the tree permit is issued are any other city permits issued for the development.
> You've had some good bylaw examples sent your way already - for some standards on what can and can't be done around city trees I'll add melbourne's city tree retention and removal policy...
> http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Tree_Retention_and_Removal_Policy.pdf
> 
> Good luck with your process!
> 
> Regards,
> Amelia.
> 
> Amelia Needoba | Senior Urban Forester, PMP, ISA Cert. Arb
> 
> 3551 Commercial Street | Vancouver | V5N 4E8
> Diamond Head Consulting P 604.733.4886 ext. 33 F 604.733.4879
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks) via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m trying to track down samples of city policies or bylaws related to tree protection that effectively balance the protection of established trees and new in-fill building. Saskatoon is currently seeing several large building projects and homes being built in established neighbourhoods where the work site is surrounded by large valuable City trees. We currently have a City Council policy in place that provide Urban Forestry with direction related to tree protection. As part of this policy we do not remove large (>15cm” diameter) healthy trees for development. However we are finding ourselves in a difficult position of attempting to work with construction companies hired to build what does not reasonably allow for preservation or protection of the existing tree(s). In some cases the building footprint requires excavation that will result in ~40%-50% root removal. Often the damage is done on the private property side when our City trees are close to property lines or in some cases straddle property lines (funny how tree roots just don’t respect property lines).
> 
>  
> 
> I know there are several cities that have tree protection bylaws and some also protect private trees. I’m wondering if anyone knows of a really good example that might include standards that include what can and can’t be done on private property adjacent to City trees. I’d also like to know if anyone can share their experience or views (what has worked and what hasn’t worked) with existing Bylaw or policies.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
>    
> 
>  
> 
> Michelle Chartier
> 
> City of Saskatoon
> 
> Community Services, Parks Division
> 
> Superintendent - Urban Forestry/Pest Management
> 
> Ph: 306.975-2537  Fax: 306.975.3034
> 
> michelle.chartier at saskatoon.ca
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170120/d18ba813/attachment-0001.html>