Staff Report: Tree Removal Application, Strata 3076 at 14 Erskine Lane
Report concerning an application to remove trees at 14 Erskine Lane and addressing long-term non-compliance with replanting requirements.
TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Council DATE: May 14, 2014 FROM: Dave Podmoroff MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014 FILE NO.:
Tree Removal Application, Strata 3076 at 14 Erskine Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council approves the removal of one (1) of the six (6) trees at 14 Erskine Lane requested to be removed;
AND THAT as per the Town's Tree Protection Bylaw 695, that two (2) trees be replanted (2:1 ratio) for this one (1) tree to be removed.;
AND FURTHER THAT, Strata 3076, complete the replanting of twenty five (25) trees (or a donation of an equivalent monetary value for planting in parks) from previous permits issued since 2006.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING'S COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To address the request for removal of six (6) trees at Strata 3076, 14 Erskine Lane and non-compliance with previously issued tree removal permits.
BACKGROUND:
The complex was constructed in 1994 and certain trees left on site as well as trees planted in the landscaping process are now 20 years older and are causing issues above and below the ground. Some of the issues are: trees are very close to the structures, in decline, having large pockets of decay, dropping branches on structures; roots are lifting asphalt and/or causing issues with drainage lines, etc. These trees are becoming too large for their location on the property and the problems they are causing will only become worse.
On March 12, 2014, Strata 3706 located at 14 Erskine Lane, made an application to remove fourteen (14) trees. After a site visit On April 24, 2014, with Florence Skinner (she was away on vacation until April 14, 2014) and Trevor Coey from Bartlett Tree Experts, a removal permit was issued on April 30, 2014 for the following eight (8) trees as they are under the size requirement and not a protected species in the Town's Tree Protection Bylaw 695.
- One (1), 29.0 cm dbh, Pine tree (Pinus sp.) located next to unit #31.
- One (1), 30.0 cm dbh, Pine tree (Pinus sp.) located next to unit #31.
- One (1), 27.0 cm dbh, Pine tree (Pinus sp.) located behind unit #12.
- One (1), 23.5 cm dbh, Pine tree (Pinus sp.) located behind unit #12.
- One (1), 21.0 cm dbh, Alder tree (Alnus rubra) located behind unit #11.
- One (1), 18.0 cm dbh, English Oak tree (Quercus robur) located behind unit #11.
- One (1), co-dominant, 12.0, 6.0 & 6.0 cm dbh, Pacific Willow tree (Salix lucida) located behind unit #11.
- One (1), 9.0 cm dbh, Spruce tree (Picea sp.) located behind unit #11.
Due to the number, species and dbh sizes, the following trees were denied removal and have come to Council to be considered for removal. See the attached arborist report from Trevor Coey of Bartlett Tree Experts for a more detailed description on the following trees:
- Tree Tag #535, one (1), 54.0 cm dbh, Douglas fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii) located behind units #42 – 46.
- Tree Tag #534, one (1), 54.5 cm dbh, Grand Fir tree (Abies grandis) located behind units #42 – 46.
- One (1) 41.5 cm dbh, Pine tree (Pinus sp.) located between units #51 & 57.
- One (1) 40.5 cm dbh, Pine tree (Pinus sp.) located between units #51 & 57.
- One (1) 47.0 cm dbh, Alder tree (Alnus rubra) located behind unit #14.
- One (1), 6.5 cm dbh, Big Leaf Maple tree (Acer macrophyllum) located behind unit #11.
Of these six trees being requested for removal, the 47.0 cm dbh, Alder tree (Alnus rubra), located behind unit #14 is the only one that is (quote from arborist report) “severely decayed in the lower trunk and poses an imminent risk of failure which could result in property damage or personal injury”. This tree should be removed as soon as possible.
The Town’s approach has been to only remove trees that are a danger to life and/or causing imminent structural damage. Regarding the other five trees in the request for removal, they are causing nuisance issues and could be pruned/altered to alleviate these concerns for the short term or until such a time that they pose a serious threat to human life or damage to structures.
In the past eight (8) years, the following tree removal permits have been issued to the Strata and the replacement trees required for these permits. Unfortunately, the Strata have not planted proper replacement trees as required in the permits issued. Previously issued permits are as follows:
- 2006, removed – 2 trees, required replacements – 2 trees
- 2007, removed – 1 tree, required replacements – 1 trees
- 2008, removed – 4 trees, required replacements – 8 trees
- 2009, removed – 3 trees, required replacements – 6 trees
- 2010, removed – small cluster (6), required replacements – 4 trees
- 2012, removed – 1 tree, required replacements – 2 trees
- 2013, removed – 1 tree, required replacements – 2 trees
The totals for these previous permits are 18 trees removed and required replacements are 25 trees. In discussions with the Strata, they have stated that Cedar hedging has been planted as some of the replacement trees. Unfortunately, these are shrubs and not proper trees. The Strata has asked about donating monetary funds for tree replacements in Town parks instead of on the complex property as they feel it is already full with current trees and there is no space is left for new ones to be replanted.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That council request an independent arborist report be completed to confirm that the tree should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council approves the removal of one (1) of the six (6) trees at 14 Erskine Lane requested to be removed.;
AND THAT as per the Town's Tree Protection Bylaw 695, that two (2) trees be replanted (2:1 ratio) for this one (1) tree to be removed.;
AND FURTHER THAT, Strata 3076, complete the replanting of twenty five (25) trees (or an equivalent monetary value for planting in parks) from previous permits issued since 2006.
SUBMITTED BY: Dave Podmoroff, Parks Supervisor
REVIEWED BY: John Rosenberg, Director of Engineering
REVIEWED BY: Kim Anema, Chief Administrative Officer



