Ownership of trees and some relevant bylaw rules are a vital part of the Vancouver landscape. In our city, trees are generally separated into two categories, trees on public land and trees on private property. The city and park board arborists take care of all trees on public land, performing pruning, pest and disease prevention and management. On private property, trees are the property of the homeowner, who must abide by the rules and regulations of the City of Vancouver Tree Bylaw. Specifically, the Protection of Trees Bylaw 9958 affects all private property owners wanting to remove a tree.

Ownership of trees can be described as follows:
• Covenant trees – number of trees that are supposed to be retained on a property per a signed agreement between the municipality and landowner
• Straddling trees – trees that are on the property line, shared between neighbors
• Off-site trees – trees on neighboring sites
• City trees – trees on city property, which usually extend 6m from the center of the road

Some Rules of the Game include:
• “DBH” means the diameter of a tree at breast height, measured from base of the tree to a height of 140 cm above natural grade of the ground. For multi-stemmed trees, the DBH is equal to the cumulative total of the DBH of each stem.
• “Permit Tree” means a tree that is 20 cm DBH or greater and any size tree in a Conservation Area or on City owned property.
• “Critical Root Zone” means the area of land surrounding the trunk of a tree contained within a circle of radius equal to the DBH of the tree multiplied by 18; or equal to the “dripline” of the tree, whichever is greater.

It is the owner’s responsibility to preserve and maintain trees on their property. Any intentional harm to trees, even on private property, could be penalized. In 2018, the owner of a Georgetown mansion was fined more than $53,000 for “excessive pruning” of two of his own trees by the Washington, D.C. Department of Transportation, even when the pruning was done to preserve a historic building.

Straddling trees are the most problematic to deal with in private tree cases. Sometimes it is not as simple as dividing up responsibility based on where the property line is. The point at which tree is measured affects ownership. Some common terms used in this type of cases are negligence, care, and nuisance. It is important to consult professionals and obtain written reports when dealing with potential legal matters. At the end of the day, a harmonious neighbor relationship benefits both sides. It is advised that you always inform your neighbour of any potential major tree work, even if the tree is well on your side of the property line. Pruning or removing trees will always affect the visual landscape to some degree.

Treasured Trees, at the west edge of UBC, is a stand of one of the two remaining old-growth forests immediately adjacent to Vancouver. It includes a 400-year-old Douglas-fir and champion grand fir. At 46 metres tall, it is nicknamed the “CBC fork tree”, due to its multi-stem top.

The champion grand fir is 64.5 metres in height and is the third tallest grand fir recorded in BC. The scraggly leaders on the “Totem Giant” are due to an attack of balsam woolly adelgid, small wingless insects that infest and kill firs. Both treasured trees can be found on the unmaintained and rough trail along Wreck Beach. More information about the trees here can be found at vancouversbigtrees.com

Photo of the “CBC fork tree”

What is a ‘protected’ tree?

This is an interesting question because there are many different answers, depending on the tolerance for development in a municipality. Every definition is deliberately tailored to what actors in the development process, i.e., arborists, residents and builders, can reasonably afford to account for—whether it be affordance of time and/or money.

For instance, a developer with plans to build a townhouse community may have 300 or so trees on their lots before construction. The ‘protected’ tree size is deliberately 30 cm in diameter so there is some time-saving leeway for development in terms of tree cutting permit application and cost. There is also so many trees consulting arborists and city arborists can assess and account for in the development market. Every tree in this 300-odd stand does not matter for convenience sake. If we acknowledged every tree, and designed with tree retention at the forefront, the building plans may take longer and likely not meet profit demands for densification.

The push for density in how we build and live, to accommodate unprecedented population
growth and urbanization, is pushing urban trees out. Mature trees are especially difficult to retain in urban settings and active construction—they are often just considered liabilities by builders and property owners. Due to densification in urban development, tree retention on sites is commonly piecemealed around large trees on small islands of original grade. Qualified professionals (i.e., arborists) protect the tree islands with high-visibility fences around approximate root zones. However, the changes in grade around the islands, changes in water circulation, wind dynamics, and impacts to root zones outside of the fenced islands affect tree retainability as well.

Swaths and/or clusters of younger, ‘undersized’ trees (not ‘protected’ size) are often passed up for retention because the builders are free to cut down any trees under the ‘protected’ tree size. There is also incentive to not save trees in large sections of the development lots because the developable footprint on each site is maximized for density and realty profits. Although individual small trees and/or groups of smaller trees can have better chance of survival during and after construction. There is not enough incentive to save enough trees or the ‘right’ trees.

The ‘protected’ trees are not exactly protected either. It just means you have to apply and pay to cut them down with an arborist assessment. Developers may be compelled by a city arborist to save certain trees. However, its common for trees to come down regardless or illegally. The lack of penalties, and reliance on fines for bylaw compliance, breeds an easier-to-ask-for forgiveness-than-permission’ attitude among taxpayers and especially development corporations. The profits on most projects dwarfs the tree felling bill and associated fines. Stop-work orders may be more effective at conjuring compliance on larger development sites for this reason.

Protected trees should be inventoried and designed for ahead, or in tandem, with building planning so there is a greater retention possibility – this would add meaning to the word ‘protected tree’. The arborist consultants should be a part of the development team in the planning stage. When tree preservation programs are developed, they should become a part of subcontractors’ contracts to aid adherence and keep everyone on the same page. For best results, open lines of communication between the builders, subcontractors, and arborist consultants must be established early on in the project so everyone knows the tree preservation program and legal requirements prior to work. Inclusion of arboriculture in the planning stage, a more generous definition of ‘protected’ tree in bylaw, and normalization of stop-work orders could net greater and higher quality tree retention. These goals ought to be the purpose of a tree protection bylaw for any municipality.