Attachment A. Committee of the Whole Report – Tree Permit Applications – Required Arborist Reports

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: July 2, 2014 FROM: D. Podmoroff MEETING DATE: July 8, 2014 FILE NO.: 5830-01

Tree Permit Applications – Required Arborist Reports

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Town of View Royal amend the existing tree protection bylaw No. 695 to include the ability to direct applicants to consult arborists of the Towns’ choosing to determine the health of requested trees to be removed;

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To have consistency regarding arborist reports for tree removals. As choices are readily available for applicants, many different arborists have been utilized in the past. Having a limited choice will help provide consistency concerning report criteria established to determine whether a tree requires removal.

BACKGROUND:

The current process for tree removal applications is as follows:

1. Applicant completes a Tree Removal Application and returns it to the Town Hall.
2. Permit is logged into the system.
3. Staff visits the site to inspect the trees that are to be removed.
4. Staff makes a decision considering many factors such as safety, the health, structure, disease/fungus, location, impact on surrounding infrastructure, condition (possible damage) of the tree and the Town’s bylaw to approve or deny the application.
5. The applicant is informed of the decision via phone, email and/or letter. If the application is denied, and the applicant disagrees they have the ability to hire an arborists to support the removal of the trees in question.
6. If after reviewing the arborists report staff still deny the request the applicant has the right to appeal as stated in Town’s Tree Protection Bylaw No. 695 in which the Staff decision goes before Council for reconsideration.
7. The applicant must collect information regarding the trees in question. One of these requirements is an arborist report stating the health and condition of the trees as well as why they need to be removed.
8. Staff prepares a report and it is presented to Council.
9. Council either upholds the Staff decision or changes what Staff has recommended.

PROJECT INFORMATION:

Currently, the applicant can use an arborist suggested by the Town or an arborist of their own choosing. Staff sends the applicant information on consulting arborists only. There are two in town, Talbot, Mackenzie and Associates, Consulting Arborists and Michael Gye & Heidi Krogstad at Urban Forestry Ltd. that do arborist reports only. They are consulting arborists only and do not do tree removals and therefore they provide an unbiased report.

For these consulting arborists to be hired, these are the approximate costs:

1. Visually examine the above-ground portions of the tree and prepare a summary report of findings a. Average minimum cost of $170.00 for one tree b. Two to six trees examined during the same site visit would average from $300.00 - $500.00.
2. Minimum average charge for a visual inspection plus Resistograph readings, increment sample or other detailed examination $340.00 per tree.

In using these arborists, the reports would be consistent and with no bias towards removal. Council would have reliable reports made available to them and able to come to an informed decision regarding an application that is before them for reconsideration.

There are three possible choices to consider.

1. Continue to utilize the current process that the applicant can hire any arborist that they wish to provide a report for Council.
   • Allows home owner to hire anyone they want
   • Arborist may have sense of obligation to write report in clients favour
   • Sometimes requires the Town to get a second opinion
2. That the Town hires the consulting arborist with all charges and fees for the report being charged up front to the applicant in the form of a deposit.
   • Homeowner may feel they paid for nothing if permit is denied
   • Increased administration costs for processing fees
   • Arborist should provide an unbiased opinion
   • Town dictates the process
3. That the Town states which arborists can be used for the reports and that the cost of the report is directly charged to the applicant from the arborist.
   • No Increase administration costs for processing fees
   • Arborist should provide an unbiased opinion
   • Town facilitates the process

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

No budget implications at this time. The cost of the arborist reports would be charged to the applicant.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

An amendment to the Tree Protections Bylaw No. 695 would be required.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council directs staff to amend the existing tree protection bylaw No. 695 to invoice tree permit applicants for the costs associated with the Town hiring an arborist to determine the health of an applicant’s trees as requested by the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Town of View Royal amend the existing tree protection bylaw No. 695 to include the ability to direct applicants to consult arborists of the Towns’ choosing to determine the health of an applicant’s trees;

SUBMITTED BY: Dave Podmoroff, Parks Supervisor

REVIEWED BY: John Rosenberg, Director of Engineering