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

[Alexis Wiessler]

Hi,

The City of Surrey Tree Protection Bylaw has a provision which is useful for these nuisance trees. I no longer work as part of Surrey’s private property tree team so cannot speak to their current practice, but some previous (possibly outdated) experience below.

In the past, an appeal process was created so the initial assessment of an application for a nuisance tree would often be denied on the basis that it does not meet Bylaw criteria for removal. The applicant could then appeal, and provide documentation supporting their application, such as a quote for driveway or pipe repair work, in a way, demonstrating that the applicant intends to follow through on repairs once the tree is removed. I think it helped deter people from claiming nuisance just because they could, and served to protect the City from setting a precedent that would open the flood gates, as you say Dan.

To my knowledge, Surrey has not approved tree removals because of aphid honeydew damaging paint on cars, though applications for exactly that scenario were very common. I’m curious about the cases from Vancouver referenced by your applicant.

Not that this helps you in the current situation, but Surrey’s bylaw includes a clause which allows for wrong-tree-wrong-place at the discretion of the General Manager (typically the decision was made by the Tech/City Arborist doing the inspection but supported by management as necessary). It might be helpful to read and consider including something similar in a future update to your bylaw,
https://www.surrey.ca/sites/default/files/bylaws/BYL_reg_16100.pdf     See Part 7, Section 30.

Good luck,

Alexis Wiessler

ISA Certified Arborist PN-7703A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Diploma, Horticulture – Landscape Design & Installation




From: Stephen Smith via CANUFNET<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>
Sent: October 20, 2023 7:42 AM
To: 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: stephen at ufora.ca<mailto:stephen at ufora.ca>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal request / resolution - Linden

Hi all.

It’s hard to have a completely black and white approach.  There are consequences both ways.

We all know of individual trees that are a real eyesore, wrong tree in the wrong place, butchered by hydro and now the poor homeowner in a $5 million dollar house has a junky tree in the front yard that they would pay any amount to replace with a large specimen of a better tree with a better future and they aren’t allowed to because of municipal laws that we are all worried will set bad precedents. The tree devalues their house just by being there and looks like crap. An embarrassment to the neighbours. This is how they see it and always will, no matter how many environmental reasons we give them.

I understand why we need to, but is there another way?  Making them pay a lot of money is one way, many won’t be willing to pay for it.

If you give municipal employees written guidelines to follow they may interpret them too loosely (mostly, they’re busy and overworked so it’s easy to rubber stamp everything and the floodgates open) or too tightly (fight hard over every instance to find a way to stop it at all costs).

And you’d need to define it very clearly – black walnut or falling acorns nuisance, no; fruit trees, yes/no depends; white pine dripping sap on cars, maybe; horribly butchered tree or completely one sided conifer standing by itself, yes.  I had a client who had the space to replace a butchered linden with a tree spaded huge maple further back on their lawn and city council said no.

As my own yard was covered in acorns in the last few weeks I understand it personally (and my wife, an avowed oak lover now thinks it was a mistake to plant the oak on a ‘small lot’ now that it’s at an age that it makes a lot of acorns. By regulating trees too tightly we make them a threat to peoples personal lives and financial security. We have created a whole generation of people who hate trees because they lose control of their property. They opt for a serviceberry or pay cash in lieu when a tree has to come out and have no tree at all to retain control over their land. This is real, not an academic discussion.

Stephen Smith
Urban Forest Associates
Urban Forestry & Ecological Restoration
www.ufora.ca
Office/fax 416-423-3387
Cell 416-707-2164

From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Naomi Zurcher via CANUFNET
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 3:22 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Naomi Zurcher <treerap at sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal request / resolution - Linden

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

[cid:image001.png at 01DA033A.CB2161C0]
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<mailto: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
[Daniel 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/20231023/4815e750/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13036 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231023/4815e750/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11940 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231023/4815e750/attachment-0001.jpg>