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

[Oliver Reichl]

“...origins of seeds ... are immaterial...”.

As it should be. I highly doubt a claim here against the City would fly in
court. That would be kinda like trying to sue the government because some
of His Majesty’s birds pooped all over your car.

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:06 PM Mark Ventresca via CANUFNET <
canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:

> Hi Jack,
>
>
>
> Property owners are responsible for maintaining their property, the
> origins of seeds or debris or garbage are immaterial to this requirement.
> If property owners wait until the trees are large enough to be “protected”
> (captured) by municipal bylaws, then the consequences are on the property
> owners. This is expectation is very common across all municipal bylaws
> (this is not specific to tree bylaws). I would expect if this were taken to
> the courts that it would be turned down if not dismissed before a hearing.
>
> The fact that property owners are not “tree experts” is also immaterial,
> property owners are also not engineers, electricians, plumbers … so these
> are things that they should get expert assistance with otherwise the
> consequences are on the property owner.
>
>
>
> Mark Ventresca
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> *On Behalf Of *Jack
> Radecki via CANUFNET
> *Sent:* October 25, 2023 9:21 AM
> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network' <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Cc:* Jack Radecki <jackandali at sympatico.ca>
> *Subject:* [External Sender] Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding:
> 'nuisance-tree' removal request / resolution - Linden
>
>
>
> Thanks Shawn
>
>
>
> The seed came from a City tree and germinated on private property. It
> unfortunately seeded in in a very poor location, tight to my client’s house
> and the central air unit. I am unsure why the clients waited so long to
> report but obviously these situations will arise. Remember these are not
> tree expert people like us. My point is regardless of the timing or size,
> the responsibility lies with the municipality or the homeowner. My opinion
> is this tree in the wrong place originated from a municipal tree. Still my
> clients are ordered to replant 2 trees or pay $600. I believe that this
> type of situation needs to be reviewed when bylaws are revisited.
>
>
>
> Jack Radecki
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> *On Behalf Of *shawnriberdy---
> via CANUFNET
> *Sent:* October 24, 2023 12:01 PM
> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Cc:* shawnriberdy at yahoo.ca
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal
> request / resolution - Linden
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> Is this seed tree on private property or on the city side. It’s my
> understanding that trees that are under a certain size don’t fall in the
> bylaw so if it is over the size and on private property why did it take so
> long to get noticed they would have had plenty of time to remove the tree
> before that size. If it is on city property then it’s on city property and
> whatever grows over they can prune off depending on the city and the bylaw.
> I think we need more information to have a real picture of what is going
> on.
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Shawn Riberdy
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2023, at 6:52 AM, Jack Radecki via CANUFNET <
> canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> To continue on nuisance trees, I recently provided a report to a client
> where seed from a municipal tree germinated within a few feet from a house
> and air conditioner unit. Clear pictures of the parent tree and the seeded
> in tree were provided. In this case the municipality has ordered 2 new
> trees planted or the cash equivalent disregarding the nuisance issue
> resulting from their own tree. Any comments on this are appreciated.
>
>
>
> Jack Radecki Registered Consulting Arborist
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> *On Behalf Of *Czypionka,
> Heath via CANUFNET
> *Sent:* October 23, 2023 11:34 AM
> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Cc:* Czypionka, Heath <Heath.Czypionka at vancouver.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal
> request / resolution - Linden
>
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
>
>
> Trees on utility right of ways are not subject to municipal tree bylaws.
> BC Hydro manages the trees in proximity to the power system.
>
> Out of curtesy, BC Hydro provides us a listing that would likely result in
> citizen complaints (tree removals or heavy maintenance pruning) in the
> Vancouver area.
>
>
>
> Regarding 'nuisance-tree' removal request…
>
> A tree removal permit can only be approved if the information provided is
> supported through the terms/language found in the Protection of Trees
> Bylaw.
>
> Peer review and senior staff will review hardship and nuisance tree
> removal applications that do not meet the criteria of the PT Bylaw.
>
> The final appeal process regarding unapproved permits in the City of
> Vancouver is through the Board of Variance.
>
> This is an appeal process that weighs the “hardship” of a citizen; as
> opposed to financial burdens, resulting from non-approved tree removal
> permits.
>
> I can recall only “one” address in Vancouver where the Board of Variance
> overturned a denied tree removal permit for aphid honey dew damaging to
> their hardscape.
>
> And I am aware that Urban Forestry have responded to citizen complaints
> resulting from aphid honey dew impacts on the public realm; usually by
> reducing the canopy over the walkways and parking; but only in the most
> severely impacted areas. It would be a logistical nightmare to satisfy all
> of the citizen concerns.
>
>
>
> As far as nuisance trees, if an applicant provides sufficient supporting
> rationale to request a tree removal (which is not specified/listed through
> the Protection of Trees Bylaw) an internal discussion ensues and on rare
> occasions, a tree removal permit may be issued.
>
> For example, if a citizen is being negatively impacted by their own
> Platanus acerifolia trees; which is a known bronchial irritant, we would
> expect a letter from an MD. We would verify that a pending development
> application is not attached to the address and confirm all of the submitted
> information; we don’t make it easy.
>
> We need to reasonable and consistent with our responses, so our review
> procedures reflect this accordingly.
>
> The Protection of Trees Bylaw is the overarching document that outlies
> which tree removals are supported and we do not waiver.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> *Heath Czypionka | Arboriculture Inspector*
>
> Development, Building & Licensing |City of Vancouver
>
> 515 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver BC V5Z 4A8
>
> Heath.Czypionka at vancouver.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> *On Behalf Of *Alexis
> Wiessler via CANUFNET
> *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2023 7:22 AM
> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Cc:* Alexis Wiessler <alexis.wiessler at live.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] precedence regarding: 'nuisance-tree' removal
> request / resolution - Linden
>
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
> 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
> [surrey.ca]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.surrey.ca/sites/default/files/bylaws/BYL_reg_16100.pdf__;!!E3YeXkmunRgu!xejhzcNF7O-kFuRDVSg5FK0vdBLzY5MQNKPGz0Q0DEb1o7WF_a-5ty9GgLLXkVFU7Yla0diAhdLDvIyNlGzvA47JG-SGCw$>
>  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 <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Sent: *October 20, 2023 7:42 AM
> *To: *'Canadian Urban Forest Network' <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Cc: *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 [ufora.ca]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.ufora.ca__;!!E3YeXkmunRgu!xejhzcNF7O-kFuRDVSg5FK0vdBLzY5MQNKPGz0Q0DEb1o7WF_a-5ty9GgLLXkVFU7Yla0diAhdLDvIyNlGzvA44rdbpZbw$>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
> 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
>
>
> JK Consulting Arborists
>
> BLOCKEDjkconsultingarb[.]comBLOCKED [jkconsultingarb.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jkconsultingarb.com/__;!!E3YeXkmunRgu!xejhzcNF7O-kFuRDVSg5FK0vdBLzY5MQNKPGz0Q0DEb1o7WF_a-5ty9GgLLXkVFU7Yla0diAhdLDvIyNlGzvA47nuj9H6Q$>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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> 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
>
> <image002.jpg>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
-----------
Sent from my mobile phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20231025/836f1909/attachment-0001.htm>