Tree root zone vs excavator luke 23 : 34

[outofmytree]

I have been involved in disputes where a driveway to the street had a gum tree sitting smack bang in the middle, the builder cant put the driveway in and the owner refuses to pay the $1500 removal cost for the tree. The builder states again that they dont own the land and it has to be cleared at the clients cost for the driveway to go in, the scabby client in debt to his ears refuses to pay and says he bought the "package" and the builder should pay for the removal of the tree.

Open your mouth, take out one foot and apply it liberally to your own posterior. The tree is on private land. The driveway crossover is on the left and the brand new garage is on the right. The cost of any tree work is the owners responsibility no matter what option they choose. The fact that the driveway has been contoured around the tree so carefully at great cost suggests preservation is their desire but as the builder didnt want to talk that cannot be confirmed.

You have failed to establish context but draw conclusion easily.

I agree. You do.

[Ekka]

My comments are in red

Originally Posted by outofmytree

That will teach me to proofread!

But you cant even read a post without adding your own versions to it.

Correct, It is highly assumptive of you to draw conclusions from 3 photographs. But it's what I like about you Ekka. Always willing to open your mouth and put both feet in at the same time.

So either it is protected and they are breaching the standard, or it isnt protected and they are creating a hazard. Either way the photographs show poor conduct on what should a show piece site.

Here you go again, in your little brain it says it's either protected or breaching a standard. But if it's awaiting removal anyway it's doing neither is it. Regarding the poor conduct what would it matter if it were a removal.

So do YOU think what was done here is right??

I don't know if the tree is being retained do I so unlike you I haven't painted them with tar.

Or is it just that posting photo's of bad work is immoral? Better not use this link then.http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/...ke_photographs

Oh wait. You already did.

you are so pathetic.

Originally Posted by outofmytree

Open your mouth, take out one foot and apply it liberally to your own posterior.

Have no idea what is going in your head but it appears your brain doesn't control your logic.

The tree is on private land. The driveway crossover is on the left and the brand new garage is on the right. The cost of any tree work is the owners responsibility no matter what option they choose. The fact that the driveway has been contoured around the tree so carefully at great cost suggests preservation is their desire but as the builder didnt want to talk that cannot be confirmed.

I agree. You do.

I'll just point my clients here to let them see what happens when they allow fools to give advice.

[derwoodii]

Its been a frustrating week, please let me share the pain.
Q. Where do you intend to put the driveway for this new town house car park.
A. Here, points to tree.
Q. What about the tree.
A. What tree, its not on the plans.

Sigh.....

[outofmytree]

Originally Posted by derwoodii

Its been a frustrating week, please let me share the pain.
Q. Where do you intend to put the driveway for this new town house car park.
A. Here, points to tree.
Q. What about the tree.
A. What tree, its not on the plans.

Sigh.....

Now there is problem. The tree is outside the fence so it would appear that it is owned by the local council. Over here the only way that removal would be permitted in most suburbs is to plant 2 trees in the verge to replace the one removed. Of course the obvious question would be why not reverse the building plan and have the crossover on the opposite side......

[Ekka]

Originally Posted by derwoodii

Its been a frustrating week, please let me share the pain.
Q. Where do you intend to put the driveway for this new town house car park.
A. Here, points to tree.
Q. What about the tree.
A. What tree, its not on the plans.

Sigh.....

Often I have to write the spec for driveways proximities to council trees.

Often it is overlooked on the drawings, however any decent developer should be employing a consulting arborist prior to design, to assess not only trees on the property but trees within 10m of boundaries and footpath trees. This is often mandated in the preliminary DA

Originally Posted by outofmytree

Now there is problem. The tree is outside the fence so it would appear that it is owned by the local council. Over here the only way that removal would be permitted in most suburbs is to plant 2 trees in the verge to replace the one removed. Of course the obvious question would be why not reverse the building plan and have the crossover on the opposite side......

Linear thinking again eh.

Not a new situation and a driveway can co-exist with this tree. Mr Developer if you need help with this one I'll help, no big deal here mate just some lawn guy who isn't qualified has no idea.

[derwoodii]

Gents, there are design process, guideline's, management systems & solutions here to prevent & heal this kinda cock up. What this thread is about is why weekly us arborist need to do this! The boffins who design failures from behind desks under framed qualifications n pay cheques 4 times ours seem to ignore all above & get you & me to "go figure it out at the wrong end of the dog".
All accept unforeseen planning issues but 40 foot high trees can not be over looked on small sites to multi million $ jobs.
Monday I sort this one, the drive may be diverted but the cost will be high as below offset line (hard to see) in pic is a storm drain gattic cover and the stepped grade makes re-profile tricky so drop $2000 on top of a $2000 driveway here.
Will the architects/designers then offer client a refund???

[outofmytree]

Originally Posted by Ekka

Linear thinking again eh.

Not a new situation and a driveway can co-exist with this tree. Mr Developer if you need help with this one I'll help, no big deal here mate just some lawn guy who isn't qualified has no idea.

Hey there's a good idea. Imagine making a curving driveway around a tree. Kinda like this one!



I guess I should have drawn lines on the photograph to make it more obvious from the start. I forgot to allow for dysl-EKKA-sia.

[outofmytree]

Originally Posted by Ekka

Often I have to write the spec for driveways proximities to council trees.

Linear thinking again eh.

Not a new situation and a driveway can co-exist with this tree. Mr Developer if you need help with this one I'll help, no big deal here mate just some lawn guy who isn't qualified has no idea.

Ewww. Is that yellow line where you recommend the driveway goes? You mean to tell a developer that he/she can scrape to 200mm below grade, add 100mm of builders sand, compact to spec then add paving or bitumen? All within 4xDBH as per your drawing? How does this line up with preserving the "feeder" roots present in the top 300mm of soil? If this an example of your sterling work you need to go back to working as a fitter. Someone hand this man a spanner.

[outofmytree]

Originally Posted by derwoodii

Gents, there are design process, guideline's, management systems & solutions here to prevent & heal this kinda cock up. What this thread is about is why weekly us arborist need to do this! The boffins who design failures from behind desks under framed qualifications n pay cheques 4 times ours seem to ignore all above & get you & me to "go figure it out at the wrong end of the dog".
All accept unforeseen planning issues but 40 foot high trees can not be over looked on small sites to multi million $ jobs.
Monday I sort this one, the drive may be diverted but the cost will be high as below offset line (hard to see) in pic is a storm drain gattic cover and the stepped grade makes re-profile tricky so drop $2000 on top of a $2000 driveway here.
Will the architects/designers then offer client a refund???

I understand exactly what you mean DW. Although working from a couple of photographs is limiting it is simple enough to figure out that if the plans had been reversed, so the garage was on the right instead of left, then there would be no conflict with this tree. Of course there may well be another tree on the right hand side...

At least you got a job out of it. Hope it all works out. Keep us in the loop.

[derwoodii]

Yup correct OMT just outside of shot is a nice large Olive tree. The diversion "if it gets up" will pass between them Ok-ishly root zone wise. But I know the home owner will push to have the Ash removed as reversing a car out with a turn n twist will never be the preferred option. To add more salt around the corner same development is a repeat design tree vs crossover failure. All this will chew hours out of my week (non billable for me). Whilst the architect rises late in his tree lined street drops of his kids at leafy private school then of to the office rain forest timber desk, to kill more trees.

[Ekka]

Originally Posted by outofmytree

Ewww. Is that yellow line where you recommend the driveway goes? You mean to tell a developer that he/she can scrape to 200mm below grade, add 100mm of builders sand, compact to spec then add paving or bitumen? All within 4xDBH as per your drawing? How does this line up with preserving the "feeder" roots present in the top 300mm of soil? If this an example of your sterling work you need to go back to working as a fitter. Someone hand this man a spanner.

Well here goes the fool again.

Where did I say scrape and all the other crap your foam forth?

I didn't but your tainted little brain comes up with all sorts of rubbish like that.

So now a paint shopped sketch is an architects drawing eh, you just like behaving like a thoroughbred idiot I'm sure.

There's many engineered alternatives to scraping, there's many options but your linear defecating brain cant persue those paths because it's too hell bent on being belligerent rather than viewing a solution and input.

You still assume that the tree in your picture is a retention. Some estates here when the builders are gone has just the house sitting on it, no driveway, sometimes no fences either, no landscaping etc. They just build the house the rest is the owners problem later. You do not know for sure what the story is yet not only slag on the builder but others who offer solutions .... truly a world class fool!

As far as being a fitter/turner previously it was a great practical experience, and another trade of which I haven't added all those units of competency up ... must be worth another 20 odd. The best part about being a fitter/turner was not only could I walk up to just about any piece of equipment and machinery and strip it + put it back together again but I could make a new part. I was well versed in the machine shop, fabricate, machine parts up etc. Very handy trade to have with this job especially working with builders as "we click" about doing things, and the objective is the task not carrying on like you do with tripe.

derwoodii, ultimately it's the Local Govts fault, they are the regulators and if their DA's are that hopeless that they dont ask or miss stuff out then they need to address that. They have plenty of tools at their disposal these days to know about trees, but if they forget to ask and check then that hole needs to be plugged.

Here it's common to survey all vegetation greater than 200mm DBH including neighbouring vegetation within 10m of boundaries. There you go, that one sentence covered it all. Now if the developer/builder etc omits that and council dont pick it up who's fault is it? Councils.

[outofmytree]

Originally Posted by Ekka

Where did I say scrape and all the other crap your foam forth?

I didn't but your tainted little brain comes up with all sorts of rubbish like that.

So now a paint shopped sketch is an architects drawing eh, you just like behaving like a thoroughbred idiot I'm sure.

There's many engineered alternatives to scraping, there's many options but your linear defecating brain cant persue those paths because it's too hell bent on being belligerent rather than viewing a solution and input.

Lol. So instead of scraping to prepare for a driveway you suggest they add fill? So you reckon it is better to bury and compact the roots than scrape them out? Either option is trouble for a tree at 4xdbh.

So lets say we follow your "plan" and still maintain 12xdbh. The tree is about 700mm dbh so the RPZ is 8.4 m. Add that to the 2.4m already taken to the left of the trunk and the trunk itself which makes 11.5m. How wide is this block? How close is the olive tree? How much extra will an "s" bend driveway cost?

So lets weigh up the options shall we?

Option 1. Change the garage position on the plans prior to building. Worst case scenario is the HO gets slugged $100 for a plan change.

Option 2. Use the Ekka plan and wind your driveway around pre-existing council trees at a likely cost of thousands of dollars.

Option 3. Buy a helicopter.

About the only thing you said that was correct was.....

Ekka.
Well here goes the fool again.

So long as you were talking about yourself.

[Ekka]

My comments are in red, sadly once again I need to no only inform but defend myself of an ignorants attacks.

Originally Posted by outofmytree

Lol. So instead of scraping to prepare for a driveway you suggest they add fill? Where did I suggest they add fill? Once again you add your own BS to fit your belligerent motives. So you reckon it is better to bury and compact the roots than scrape them out? I didn't reckon anything of the kind at all but interesting to see your ignorant brain at work. Either option is trouble for a tree at 4xdbh. Where did 4xDBH com from as I dont recall mentioning it?

So lets say we follow your "plan" and still maintain 12xdbh. My plan, I didn't recommend any specification but once again you did, so it's YOUR plan not mine. The tree is about 700mm dbh so the RPZ is 8.4 m. Add that to the 2.4m already taken to the left of the trunk and the trunk itself which makes 11.5m. How wide is this block? How close is the olive tree? How much extra will an "s" bend driveway cost?

So lets weigh up the options shall we?

Option 1. Change the garage position on the plans prior to building. Worst case scenario is the HO gets slugged $100 for a plan change. This option is assuming the tree stays and if the tree does stay this option is exhausted anyhow.

Option 2. Use the Ekka plan and wind your driveway around pre-existing council trees at a likely cost of thousands of dollars. At this stage I have options and conceptions/ideas but no solid plans however OOMT is suggesting his versions are my plan. Encroachments into root zones are not a new thing but before plans are cast in stone some work needs to be done.

Option 3. Buy a helicopter. There you go Mr Developer and council this guy could make your 2020 design team, not!

About the only thing you said that was correct was.....

So long as you were talking about yourself. Who is the fool now, once again?

YOU

[treeseer]

OMT last time you two spatted you were in the right, but this time you're behind the curve. Installing driveways above rootzones is a simple process and would not be $2k here. Get the book Trees & Development; does your chapter sell it? here's a brief spec; Ekka may have better.

derwoodii we feel your pain re the wrong end of the dog but like it or not it is on us to make it hunt without getting browned ourselves.
at any rate the yellow line could be redrawn closer to the tree if need be.

APPENDIX I: GUIDELINES FOR DRIVEWAY INSTALLATION

PART I—PRODUCTS

A. MATERIALS
1. The Structural Soil Mix shall be 80% pre-mixed blend of ¾ inch graded STALITE expanded slate lightweight aggregate and 20% approved sandy loam. This pre-mixed material is supplied locally by Triangle Landscape Supplies from three different locations.

PART II—EXECUTION

A. PREPARATION
1. The broken driveway pieces shall be removed carefully, starting at the Kalkhrust property and ending at the sidewalk. The gravel substrate shall be removed by hand and blown off the roots with air, to avoid further damage.
2. The roots underneath shall be inspected for damage done when the driveway broke, and any damage treated as in Recommendation 1.
B. PLACING STRUCTURAL SOIL MIX BY PAVING CONTRACTOR
1. The fill shall be place in a uniform lift that is 8” above the roots closest to the tree trunk and tapering toward the ends.
2. Use of vibratory plate compacting machine or vibratory roller is recommended.
3. Construction equipment, other than compacting equipment, shall not operate on the exposed structural soil mix.
ABOVE THE SUBSTRATE
1. Geotextile fabric shall be spread to avoid mixing of the substrate with the concrete. WWF4X4-W6.5X6.5 wire mesh shall be laid on top for added strength and flexibility.
2. A 6” concrete pad shall then be poured. The forms on the sides should be secured with stakes or pins that do not damage the roots. The use of smaller panels with expansion joints should be considered.

These specifications are adapted from examples in the book Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. I am providing Mr. Best with a copy of this book and a copy of Trees and Development for his reference. Alterations to these specifications may be made only in consultation with Mr. Best or a pavement contractor that he assigns.

[Ekka]

Originally Posted by treeseer

OMT last time you two spatted you were in the right

Now I wonder what "spat" you refer to?

The last one I recall was the AQF system in here in Australia that likely you know know very little about, and he was way wrong in that one.

But thanks for helping out sorting some crud from clay with the rest of his disabilities/ignorance.

We dont have a soil profile yet either, ever tried compacting sand?

How deep is the root zone and what is the root density? No facts just OOMT pulling his pud.