Anyone into gardening here?

[jc100]

I guess the golden rule is well and truly dead for most of you...

I use the golden rule in these cases. When something hath been done unto me, I do unto them. Several hours of a humming pump that could easily be scheduled at a time when people aren’t about (I’ve given a large range of times) that chases me out my garden is worth several hours of something I could easily not do at certain times too.

Juvenile? Yes. Satisfying? Also yes. Pavlovian response training? Very much anticipated.

Just before anyone else chimes in. I don’t mow my lawn when people are using their gardens as I know that’s not a decent thing to do. I don’t play music loud outside regularly as that’s not a decent thing to do. In short I don’t do anything to my neighbours that I wouldn’t want done to me (the golden rule).

 

[matthew]

I have a reel mower. My neighbours appreciate it.

 

[jc100]

I have a reel mower. My neighbours appreciate it.

Bluetooth speaker strapped to it with lawnmower sounds…just in case they turn funny.

 

[Scuba Steve]

You have a 20:1 lawnmower or you "accidentally" put two-stroke gas in your four stroke mower?

Accidental used up the rest of the dirt bike gas in the mower.

Sent from the future

 

[nobbie48]

Neighbour disputes are the worst. People should do everything in their power to avoid them. It never ends well. It can get bad enough that you can't even sell and move as the neighbour sabotages every viewing. I've only heard of one case of the courts forcing the ahole to sell and move. The more you fight back (even through legal avenues), the worse the neighbours behaviour will get. Sadly, some people are just inconsiderate aholes.

It's like fighting with a pig. You end up wallowing in mud and crap. The pigs love it.

I've heard of a very few condo owners being made non grata but it's rare, hard work and expensive.

 

[Mad Mike]

We just had this with a load of massive conifers on the property boundary (on neighbours side). I complained that unless they were trimmed I’m continually losing sunlight in my yard. Neighbour moaned and said she needed privacy so I asked her if 15ft wasn’t enough as the conifers were over 20. Anyway, they‘ve just been trimmed and I asked the tree company to strip everything up from the property line that’s on our side. Now I just need her to understand that her hot tub humming away for 2h a day isn’t really acceptable if it’s chasing neighbours indoors.

Be careful when trimming the neighbor lady's bush! If your town has a tree preservation bylaw, you can only take 1/3rd of the stuff on your side of the property without risking penalties and damages.

My neighbor son scalped my trees -- several died, and the entire hedge is now dying. The Neighbour is liable for the replacement cost of the hedge -- approximately $20,000. I won't pull the trigger on her because she's 90, I like her, and it was her dumbass son that did the damage... but when she goes or sells -- I might force her or her estate to replace the hedge.

 

[Mad Mike]

So what happens if a neighbour trims the tree, or bush on their side, but also some on your side.

My idoit neighbour did something like this. I have this big bushy "tree". I just noticed the other day 1 of the stocks near the fence was chopped down. It goes straight up near the fence, and it was chopped down on my side. So imgaine the stock/bush trunk running up near the fence going straight up was chopped where it meets the height of the fence.

He's not supposed to cut on your side, and in Toronto, he can only prune 33% of that hangs on his side.

Warn him that if he cuts your trees again, you'll press trespassing charges.

 

[Mad Mike]

The relationship with the neighbour is done, happened years ago. The gloves are off now.
They are just disrespectful douches, who do this kind of crap, play music constantly, and run their mouths.

On top of this they also planted new cedar trees in between the mature cedars on the front lawn, what appears to be the property line, or maybe my side. I was going to rip them up and toss them, but I will just trim them back to the trunks on my side and let them wither instead.

I'd tell them to rip them out. You can plant, prune or cut a boundary tree without the consent of both parties, so those trees are a source of future frustration.

Play "I Shot the Sherrif" real loud while you're pulling them.

 

[GreyGhost]

Be careful when trimming the neighbor lady's bush! If your town has a tree preservation bylaw, you can only take 1/3rd of the stuff on your side of the property without risking penalties and damages.

My neighbor son scalped my trees -- several died, and the entire hedge is now dying. The Neighbour is liable for the replacement cost of the hedge -- approximately $20,000. I won't pull the trigger on her because she's 90, I like her, and it was her dumbass son that did the damage... but when she goes or sells -- I might force her or her estate to replace the hedge.

Interesting wording in that by-law. Important bits below.

“Good Arboricultural Practice” means the proper implementation of removal,
renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for individual trees in
and around urban areas to minimize detrimental impacts on urban forest values,
and includes pruning of trees to remove dead limbs, maintain structural stability
and balance, or to encourage their natural form, provided that such pruning is
limited to the appropriate removal of not more than one-third of the live branches
or limbs of a tree, but does not include pruning to specifically increase light or
space;

(z) “Pruning” means the removal, as appropriate, of not more than one-third of the
live branches or limbs of a tree in accordance with Good Arboricultural Practice;

I can see a few holes that someone could achieve their desired result and have a decent argument in court if they had to fight charges. As a first cut, on something like a cedar, removing 33% of the length of each branch (which seems to comply with the wording of the by-law) may eliminate most foliage. Next year you are allowed to remove all of the stubs as they do not appear alive and are therefore exempt. I am not sure on the definition of branches. City may be able to argue that you removed all of the branches and only left limbs and are therefore in violation. I wouldn't consider most protrusions from the trunk of a cedar limbs but I'm not an arborist.

A second hole is time. The bylaw seems to allow me to whack 33% of the branches at the property line. If I repeat that process yearly, am I in violation?

 

[Mad Mike]

Interesting wording in that by-law. Important bits below.

“Good Arboricultural Practice” means the proper implementation of removal,
renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for individual trees in
and around urban areas to minimize detrimental impacts on urban forest values,
and includes pruning of trees to remove dead limbs, maintain structural stability
and balance, or to encourage their natural form, provided that such pruning is
limited to the appropriate removal of not more than one-third of the live branches
or limbs of a tree, but does not include pruning to specifically increase light or
space;

(z) “Pruning” means the removal, as appropriate, of not more than one-third of the
live branches or limbs of a tree in accordance with Good Arboricultural Practice;

I can see a few holes that someone could achieve their desired result and have a decent argument in court if they had to fight charges. As a first cut, on something like a cedar, removing 33% of the length of each branch (which seems to comply with the wording of the by-law) may eliminate most foliage. Next year you are allowed to remove all of the stubs as they do not appear alive and are therefore exempt. I am not sure on the definition of branches. City may be able to argue that you removed all of the branches and only left limbs and are therefore in violation. I wouldn't consider most protrusions from the trunk of a cedar limbs but I'm not an arborist.

A second hole is time. The bylaw seems to allow me to whack 33% of the branches at the property line. If I repeat that process yearly, am I in violation?

I tried this argument when I wanted to remove a nuisance tree from my yard. 'Good Arboricultural Practice' for my monster maples is a 33% reduction every 5 years, which basically guarantees the tree will on average never get smaller due to pruning.

The 33% also includes the removal of dead limbs.

This is what's I've faced twice in the last 20 years - town still won't let me remove the tree.

 

[GreyGhost]

I tried this argument when I wanted to remove a nuisance tree from my yard. 'Good Arboricultural Practice' for my monster maples is a 33% reduction every 5 years, which basically guarantees the tree will on average never get smaller due to pruning.

The 33% also includes the removal of dead limbs.

This is what's I've faced twice in the last 20 years - town still won't let me remove the tree.

View attachment 62275

The five year thing is interesting and not ingrained in the by-law. I wonder what legal authority they are using for that? They can't just make things up, it has to be in a by-law to be law.

The 33% explicitly does not include dead limbs. " one-third of the live branches or limbs of a tree". Good arboricultural practice includes the removal of dead limbs. Again, I'm not an arborist but to me, that reads as dead limbs should be removed if that helps the tree health (and again, I'm not sure where they draw the branch/limb line).

 

[Scuba Steve]

I tried this argument when I wanted to remove a nuisance tree from my yard. 'Good Arboricultural Practice' for my monster maples is a 33% reduction every 5 years, which basically guarantees the tree will on average never get smaller due to pruning.

The 33% also includes the removal of dead limbs.

This is what's I've faced twice in the last 20 years - town still won't let me remove the tree.

View attachment 62275

I feel lucky I have never asked permission before trees disappeared


Sent from the future

 

[jc100]

I tried this argument when I wanted to remove a nuisance tree from my yard. 'Good Arboricultural Practice' for my monster maples is a 33% reduction every 5 years, which basically guarantees the tree will on average never get smaller due to pruning.

The 33% also includes the removal of dead limbs.

This is what's I've faced twice in the last 20 years - town still won't let me remove the tree.

View attachment 62275

Nice tree. Be a shame if it somehow got injected with Roundup.

 

[GreyGhost]

I feel lucky I have never asked permission before trees disappeared


Sent from the future

Tree bylaws are all over the place. The one I currently like the best is anything under y inches is not a tree. Anything over that is a tree and you can remove up to x trees per year without a permit (x is normally 3 or less). If you want to remove more, you need an arborist report and pay for a permit. Seems to be a good balance of preservation and allowing you to use your property.

 

[jc100]

Tree bylaws are all over the place. The one I currently like the best is anything under y inches is not a tree. Anything over that is a tree and you can remove up to x trees per year without a permit (x is normally 3 or less). If you want to remove more, you need an arborist report and pay for a permit. Seems to be a good balance of preservation and allowing you to use your property.

I actually like a leafy neighbourhood but having a tree on your property comes with certain responsibilities. Many neighbours just plant the things and don’t look after them. If more people were aware of the costs of taking down a nuisance/damaged tree they probably would look after them more.

 

[GreyGhost]

I actually like a leafy neighbourhood but having a tree on your property comes with certain responsibilities. Many neighbours just plant the things and don’t look after them. If more people were aware of the costs of taking down a nuisance/damaged tree they probably would look after them more.

The flipside is if the previous kevin planted a dumb tree (too close, too fragile, animal ladder to roof, etc), a homeowner should have the ability to correct the wrong. I have no problem if there is consideration for replanting. That may not always be practical though. For instance, if you bought a lot that came with 10 tree and all of the neighbours have one or less, should you be required to maintain all 10 even if that means you can't utilize the lot as you desire? Installing a pool would be a simple example. If your lot is left with eight trees after pool install, you are still doing far more for urban canopy than all of your neighbours combined.

Barrie ran into a crapshow recently. They allowed secondary dwelling units to be constructed close to rear property lines. Construction of many of those dwellings cut major roots for trees on neighbouring lots which affected their stability and viability. With no relevant by-law in place, the person that owned the tree was responsible for the multi-thousand dollar bill to remove the tree. Sure, the person that built the secondary dwelling should pick it up but they were almost exclusively student housing slumlords that dgaf about neighbours or morals, just maximizing money.

 

[Mad Mike]

The five year thing is interesting and not ingrained in the by-law. I wonder what legal authority they are using for that? They can't just make things up, it has to be in a by-law to be law.

The 33% explicitly does not include dead limbs. " one-third of the live branches or limbs of a tree". Good arboricultural practice includes the removal of dead limbs. Again, I'm not an arborist but to me, that reads as dead limbs should be removed if that helps the tree health (and again, I'm not sure where they draw the branch/limb line).

I guess it's where you live. Where I live the City has an inventory that identifies the canopy circumference and species of every tree in the city. City arborists carry this data along with aerial Google Earth surveys that show the trees, with each canopy circled and labeled. If I tried to reduce the tree over time, they could prove it.

Perhaps the interpretations are different in different areas -- I've looked at every possible angle to solve my tree problem, and I have zero options for reducing the size of the trees. When those limbs came down, I had a short window to 'remove storm-damaged trees' without a permit. I needed a tree service to do it, shouldn't get one.

What I am most afraid of is an order to cable the tree. $4000/tree - ouch!

 

[jc100]

I guess it's where you live. Where I live the City has an inventory that identifies the canopy circumference and species of every tree in the city. City arborists carry this data along with aerial Google Earth surveys that show the trees, with each canopy circled and labeled. If I tried to reduce the tree over time, they could prove it.

Perhaps the interpretations are different in different areas -- I've looked at every possible angle to solve my tree problem, and I have zero options for reducing the size of the trees. When those limbs came down, I had a short window to 'remove storm-damaged trees' without a permit. I needed a tree service to do it, shouldn't get one.

What I am most afraid of is an order to cable the tree. $4000/tree - ouch!

My neighbour had an enormous tree taken down as it had started to rot up high. I think his bill was about $14k or something ridiculous. They had to drive a boom truck through another neighbours yard and then redo and reseed his lawn afterwards from that damage.

 

[Mad Mike]

My neighbour had an enormous tree taken down as it had started to rot up high. I think his bill was about $14k or something ridiculous. They had to drive a boom truck through another neighbours yard and then redo and reseed his lawn afterwards from that damage.

The best quote I got was $6.5K to bring the tree down, that was by a 'dangerous tree' service. Then I'd still need a tree service on the ground to buck, chip, and deal with the stump. Probably another $5K.

My hope is mother nature will have her way with the tree, then it's the insurance company's problem.

 

[backmarkerducati]

I guess it's where you live. Where I live the City has an inventory that identifies the canopy circumference and species of every tree in the city. City arborists carry this data along with aerial Google Earth surveys that show the trees, with each canopy circled and labeled. If I tried to reduce the tree over time, they could prove it.

Perhaps the interpretations are different in different areas -- I've looked at every possible angle to solve my tree problem, and I have zero options for reducing the size of the trees. When those limbs came down, I had a short window to 'remove storm-damaged trees' without a permit. I needed a tree service to do it, shouldn't get one.

What I am most afraid of is an order to cable the tree. $4000/tree - ouch!

We have a massive 150+ year old Silver Maple in our backyard, about six feet across. We had a Cobra System done (type of cabling) the cost was around 2K. It was not needed (arborst was actually discouraging the waste of money) but we sleep better at night.

The tree is on the way out health wise, estimates are coming in around 20K for removal when it is time, it is BIG and in the backyard.