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

[Naomi Zurcher]

Hi Jennifer and Daniel.

I would suggest that this IS an ill-informed homeowner and anything you put in the tree’s place will instigate a pushback.

Is a smaller tree more suitable for the site??? Or is it “the tree” and whatever its attributes turned negative might be? There are people who just don’t like trees and will find any excuse to demand removal.

I also agree with Linda from the SOS tree Coalition that bending existing laws for a dodgy reason will surely open the floodgates to removal demands.

In addition, the tree is benefiting many more people than the unknowing homeowner and one needs to calculate the larger loss to the community, especially if the tree is healthy. Those Ecosystem Services along with the accompanying biodiversity are irreplaceable for generations.

A well written, well documented subtle but emphatic pushback that doesn’t mention names, published on the Municipality’s website, is the order of the day.

Naomi Zurcher


Arbor Aegis
Urban Forester / Consulting Arborist / I-Tree team affiliate member
6006 Luzern
Switzerland

> On Oct 19, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Jennifer Koskinen via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> Perhaps this is not a  'nuisance-tree' issue - but can be looked at as  - wrong tree wrong location case. Remove the tree and plant a smaller species with the tree moved closer to the adjacent neighbour property line.  This large tree is growing between two driveways, and the homeowner has put cobblestones around the tree.  The City can look at it as rectifying a situation, a smaller tree suitable for the site (and using a species with no potential nuisance - so no fruit trees).  The homeowner may miss the shade this tree provided in the summer though. 
> Just an idea. Sometimes homeowners will not give up, and they may even find new projects to complete on their own property that may 'accidentlaly' kill the tree over time. 
> 
> -jk
> 
> Jennifer Koskinen, HBESfcon, 
> ISA Certified Arborist ON-1234A
> Senior Arborist
> mobile: 519-778-5502
> jennifer at jkconsultingarb.com <mailto:jennifer at jkconsultingarb.com>
> 
> JK Consulting Arborists
> www.jkconsultingarb.com <http://www.jkconsultingarb.com/>
> 
> 
> The content of this email is confidential property of JK Consulting Arborists and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with JK Consulting Arborists written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:04 PM 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 <>
> 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/20231020/cdfc5d5e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: arbor aegis logo.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 84840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231020/cdfc5d5e/attachment-0001.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231020/cdfc5d5e/attachment-0001.jpg>