[CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

[Philip van Wassenaer]

Another question might be or needs to be : value to whom?

Philip van Wassenaer, B.SC., MFC
Urban Forest Innovations Inc.
1331 Northaven Drive
Mississauga ON L5G 4E8
Tel:  (905) 274-1022
Cell: (647) 221-3046
Fax: (905) 274-2170


www.urbanforestinnovations.com

-----Original Message-----
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Michael
Richardson via CANUFNET
Sent: December 2, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mrtree at kos.net>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

The trunk formula method is obsolete, it has been replaced by the Trunk
Formulae Technique.

The TRM or TFT do not "apply" a value to a tree but rather both are
calculations of the cost of reproduction.  Cost is not value!

If you wish to calculate the value of a tree on a development site then in
all likelihood the value is negative as it will be a cost to the developer
to maintain and it may be used to sterilize development rights and reduce
development footprint which reduces profit and is a negative CREMV.



> Good morning Crispin,
> I developed the City of Cambridge private tree bylaw based on the 
> economic disincentive concept.  It uses the trunk formula method to 
> apply a value to any trees protected within scope of the bylaw; anyone 
> can get an approved permit if they pay the fees.  While the trunk 
> formula method isn't the best fit for every situation, it is a 
> reasonable standard that the public can understand and apply.  The 
> fees go into a reserve account which funds a tree planting program 
> operated by a local not-for-profit REEP (https://reepgreen.ca/trees/) 
> that plants trees back on private property (no funds are used for city 
> tree planting).  It applies to development and non-development scenarios.
You can review it here:
> https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/resources/Private-Tree-Forestr
> y-By-Law-124-18.pdf
>
> Brian Geerts
>
>
> This message, including any attachments, may contain information which 
> is confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, 
> and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed 
> above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this 
> message by mistake, please notify the sender by replying via email, 
> and destroy all copies of this message, including any attachments, 
> without making a copy. Thank you for your cooperation.
> From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Wood, 
> Crispin via CANUFNET
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:59 AM
> To: canufnet at list.web.net
> Cc: Wood, Crispin <woodc at halifax.ca>; Gempton, Shilo 
> <gemptos at halifax.ca>
> Subject: [External] Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection
>
> Hello Folks,
>
> Council has asked Halifax Administration to investigate options to 
> incentivize tree retention on private lands scheduled for new 
> development (subdivisions etc.). I am curious if other municipalities 
> have conducted a similar jurisdictional review that they might be 
> willing to share, or have any experiences with private tree bylaws or 
> other planning tools used to either incentivize, disincentivize or 
> compensate for urban canopy loss in greenfield development?
>
> I know some of you may have already responded to a colleague of mine 
> via the CUSP mind hive, and thank you.
>
> Crispin Wood, MSFM
> Superintendent of Urban Forestry
> Road Operations & Construction
> Transportation & Public Works
> (902) 225-2774
>
> HËLIFËX
> PO BOX 1749
> HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5
> halifax.ca<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hal
> ifax.ca_&d=DwMFCQ&c=bd_3_Wi6wDlmHnKqRGbLBw&r=2-CE2uoYfoXIy2A2HncdYSlz3
> CQUgXMWswMfY512CRk&m=yP5SNkVdwrfJw7fk2t8LcqyQY7FwFMwJmRTwZ-YVH14&s=6-Z
> IYJ5kYpMUWVI4F6-aTaBHTcsnx2_H_jEzSmQb_r4&e=>
>
>