[CANUFNET] FW: Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

Thu Oct 20 08:31:17 EDT 2022

I would like to escalate this discussion to the next level. It is understood
that at least in Ontario there is a mandate for each municipality to have a
Tree Risk Assessment Policy. At the very minimum there should be a tree
inspection policy.

The following is my opinion and I welcome anyone to dispute this. Target is
a main component of any Tree Risk Assessment Policy. Safety is most
important for pedestrians using municipal right of ways. If a potential high
to extreme risk tree is noted by a tree inspector that targets a municipal
roadway or sidewalk then immediate due diligence must be undertaken. This
includes city owned and private trees as noted. I refer to Robert’s comment
in his last paragraph below. I am in complete agreement with him. I hope
others will offer their opinions on this.

Jack Radecki RCA 342

From: Liveanu, Robert <r.liveanu at laval.ca <mailto:r.liveanu at laval.ca> > 
Sent: October 19, 2022 4:54 PM
To: Jack Radecki <jackandali at sympatico.ca <mailto:jackandali at sympatico.ca> >
Subject: RE: [CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

In such an urgent case, we would simply ring the doorbell and have a
conversation with the property owner. If no one answers, we’d try to find
out their phone number. At the same time, in order to maintain a paper
trail, we’d send by registered mail our official notice of a dangerous tree
(so skip the first step of “avis de courtoisie”, and go directly to step
#2), urging them to remove the hazard as soon as possible, say 2-3 weeks. If
the owner doesn’t act by the deadline, we send out our own team and bill the
cost to the owner.

Like I said, the City’s Legal department is currently reviewing our process.
It’s possible that they’ll modify their opinion to that if we come across an
urgent situation, it’s the City’s duty to remove the hazard right away,
rather than waiting on the property owner to do so. 

___

Robert Liveanu, MFC, B.Sc.

Arboriculteur certifié de l’ISA

Technicien à la foresterie

Division Foresterie & Horticulture

Service des travaux publics

Tél. 450-978-6888 poste 4775

<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.laval.
ca%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cr.liveanu%40laval.ca%7Cc3d569fbb4384f489fc708dab276eee4
%7C15ebd2ebb8cf40dd8e2bb2e67abb40ef%7C0%7C0%7C638018521139479287%7CUnknown%7
CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5Nb85Aev9vAO4sX%2B3cD2vBrqJfpSyATIUdzeXyDnXwE%3D&r
eserved=0> www.laval.ca

De : Jack Radecki [mailto:jackandali at sympatico.ca] 
Envoyé : 19 octobre 2022 16:40
À : 'Canadian Urban Forest Network' <canufnet at list.web.net
<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> >
Cc : Liveanu, Robert <r.liveanu at laval.ca <mailto:r.liveanu at laval.ca> >
Objet : RE: [CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

Thanks for the very useful inputs Robert. I would send the picture of the
tree if I could but cannot because of potential litigation. I can definitely
say that a competent tree inspector would require immediate action for this
tree. I would like comments on this in terms of extreme risk. (the
responsibility to act if it’s aware of a potential dangerous situation) I
could provide you with more details off list.

Best Jack

From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
<mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> > On Behalf Of Liveanu, Robert via
CANUFNET
Sent: October 19, 2022 11:51 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net
<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> >
Cc: Liveanu, Robert <r.liveanu at laval.ca <mailto:r.liveanu at laval.ca> >
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

Hi Jack,

I can give an overview of how the Forestry department handles these cases at
the City of Laval. If we notice a dead or hazardous privately-owned tree, if
the situation is judged to not require immediate action, the first step is
to mail to the owners what we call an “avis de courtoisie”, essentially a
friendly warning urging them to remove the tree (or in more rare cases,
simply to prune the hazardous limbs). There’s a bit of inconsistency amongst
the different technicians in our office, but we generally only send this
letter if there’s public land (road, sidewalk, etc.) as a target. This
letter hasn’t much legal weight, rather just a friendly warning advising the
owners of the hazard and encouraging them to act accordingly. 

If the situation isn’t remedied within a certain timeframe (up to the tech’s
discretion, generally 3-6 months), a second letter is sent that’s more of an
ultimatum: act now before a set deadline, otherwise the City will carry out
the work and bill the cost to the owner.

A couple of notes: like Peter said, it’s pretty rare that a situation
escalates up to that point. As well, I’ve heard grumblings that the City’s
Legal department is reviewing our procedures, as they might be of the
opinion that the City does have more responsibility to act if it’s aware of
a potentially dangerous situation, rather than urging and waiting for the
property owner to do it. Finally, and again there is some internal debate
over our methods, but we do generally send out at least the first letter
(the avis de courtoisie) even when the tree isn’t exactly “””dangerous”””
per se; because owners are legally obligated to replant a new tree after
removal, we want owners to be aware of the by-laws of needing to remove a
dead tree and replant a new one, in the optics of maintaining a canopy. So
whether it’s a dead 15-cm lilac or a 100-cm poplar, property owners receive
essentially the same letter.

Hope this helps, I can provide more details on bylaws, specific cases,
logistics, etc. if you wish.

Best,

___

Robert Liveanu, MFC, B.Sc.

Arboriculteur certifié de l’ISA

Technicien à la foresterie

Division Foresterie & Horticulture

Service des travaux publics

Tél. 450-978-6888 poste 4775

<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.laval.
ca%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cr.liveanu%40laval.ca%7Cc3d569fbb4384f489fc708dab276eee4
%7C15ebd2ebb8cf40dd8e2bb2e67abb40ef%7C0%7C0%7C638018521139479287%7CUnknown%7
CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5Nb85Aev9vAO4sX%2B3cD2vBrqJfpSyATIUdzeXyDnXwE%3D&r
eserved=0> www.laval.ca

De : CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] De la part de Peter
Shields via CANUFNET
Envoyé : 19 octobre 2022 10:59
À : Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net
<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> >
Cc : Peter Shields <peter.shields1 at hotmail.com
<mailto:peter.shields1 at hotmail.com> >
Objet : Re: [CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

Hello Jack,

It has been my experience these details are in the actual bylaw. Some have a
line stating they can enter adjacent lands to mitigate where a tree may
negatively impact infrastructure.  Some have the ability to issue an order
to a tree owner for the same. And if they do not, they can sometimes put the
costs on their tax bill. Generally, they only manage Municipal Trees, not
private trees.

It is impossible all risks are known to the municipality. Also, extreme
risks are very rare as they are usually dealt with immediately so I may
suggest to exercise caution in deeming a tree as such post casualty. Tree
owners have a duty of care, including their trees and what a reasonable
understanding of risks may be.

One last thing, municipalities generally do not assess private trees. If
there is an obvious inherent risk, sometimes they may notify if seen. These
would be for trees that are failing imminently or deemed an actual hazard.
This is critically important to distinguish.

It sounds like it should be provable the municipality knew about the extreme
risk and did not do anything to mitigate.

Cheers,

Peter Shields
RCA, ISA BCMA, TRAQ

<olm://message-contents/AQACAAAAyQAAAAAAAAAAyAkBAAAAAAAA1AAAAAAAAQJDAAAAAAAB
CcgAAAAAAAECQwIAAIABAAAAMnBldGVyLnNoaWVsZHMxQGhvdG1haWwuY29tX0FjdGl2ZVN5bmNN
aWNyb3NvZnRfSHhT/www.shieldstree.com> www.shieldstree.com
 <tel:+17055004860> (705) 500-4860

  _____  

From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
<mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> > on behalf of Naomi Zurcher via
CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 9:53:56 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net
<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> >
Cc: Naomi Zurcher <treerap at sprintmail.com <mailto:treerap at sprintmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies 

Does the municipality have a Right-of-Way ordinance which would have changed
the status of the private tree to a public tree given its proximity to a
publicly accessible roadway? 

Naomi Zürcher

On Oct 19, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Jack Radecki via CANUFNET
<canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> > wrote:

I posted this morning on the American Society of Consulting Arborists
Listserve the post as shown below. I know that many municipal tree managers
subscribe to CANUFNET with hopes of getting an opinion or even a
confirmation from within the Tree Risk Assessment Policy. Anyone is welcome
to provide their opinions here. See below.

“I am looking for precedents or opinions on private trees targeting
municipal rights of way. In this case a badly decayed willow had fallen
across a roadway injuring a pedestrian. There was no sidewalk and the tree
fell across the whole roadway. I have reviewed pictures showing extensive
decay in a large open wound on the main stem easily visible from the
roadway. This tree would easily have been labelled as an extreme risk for
failure by a competent tree inspector. I do note that the shoot growth and
foliage size and colour was still good despite the structural defect. As
target is one of the 3 main components of tree risk assessment, should the
municipality showed due diligence in inspecting this private tree targeting
the road allowance that pedestrians frequently use? Does the responsibility
fall to the municipality to note and take steps (action) to have the tree
removed in terms of notice to the owners? Now that the tragedy has occured
and litigation has begun what can be expected as a result? Remember that
this is a private tree. I wonder how many municipal tree risk assessment
policies include private trees? In 2005 I was retained within a coroners
inquest sadly for a child death on an educational trail at a botanical
garden. As a result of the decision from the inquest a mandate was initiated
to have all Conservation Authorities, Municipalities and Private
Institutions create and maintain a Tree Risk Assessment Policy.”

Jack Radecki RCA 342 Lindsay, Ontario, Canada

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20221020/9b14a95a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20221020/9b14a95a/attachment.png>