Money doesn’t grow on trees, but a clash between Swansea neighbours could prove costly as one resident attempts to remove a 70-year-old Siberian Elm tree straddling their property line.

The tree, which is 86 centimetres in diameter and in “fair” condition according to the city, is on the boundary of two bordering properties — one on Ellis Park Rd. and the other on Ellis Ave. — by a ravine near High Park.

David Sher, whose family has lived in the Ellis Park Rd. home since the 1970s, said he filed an application in November to remove the tree after noticing the trunk had grown to the point it was crushing the gutter of his garage.

“I’m just trying to save my garage,” said Sher, 80. “We’ve lost the gutter, now we’re going to start losing the main structure. The trunk seems to be expanding rather quickly. Next growing season we’ll start to see real structural damage.”

But neighbour JeanAnn Stewart and her husband oppose Sher’s application. She said removing the tree would have a negative effect on the neighbourhood’s aesthetic. She takes issue with how he’s gone through the process “without thinking how are my neighbours going to feel.”

“I think for anybody, taking down a 70-year-old tree in your backyard is a very emotional thing,” Stewart said. “He hasn’t allowed us to be sympathetic to his issue because of the way he’s been acting. There’s no love lost here whatsoever.”

Both properties are protected by Toronto’s Ravine and Natural Feature Protection bylaw, which allows the city to prohibit and regulate any tree destruction in order to promote conservation of ravines.

“We live on a ravine property that’s an odd-shaped lot,” said Stewart, who’s lived on Ellis Ave. with her husband since 2010.

“The backyard isn’t really great for parties or entertaining or just hanging out in. So the trees are kind of the only endearing quality about it and it’s kind of the reason why we bought the house because they had these beautiful old growth trees that sort of melt into High Park.”

Have your say

The city issued a letter to Stewart and her husband on Jan. 25 informing them that Sher’s application met staff’s requirements and he’d soon receive a permit to remove the tree.

While Stewart says the tree is predominantly located on her property, Sher was able to apply for the permit because the tree’s base straddles the property line.

“I’m paying for the permit and everything else,” said Sher, who estimated the whole process will cost him upwards of $10,000.

“What I have offered to do is to cut it down below the level where it will cease to affect the garage and then that doesn’t cost them any money. They’ll be left with a stump, how they handle that would be up to them.”

The city’s letter states that any further dispute about the ownership of the tree or Sher’s application is a matter of civil law. But Stewart said it’s too expensive to file a court injunction to prevent the tree from coming down. There’s no timeline on when the tree would be cut.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

She said it would be more cost effective for her neighbour to move the one-car garage six to eight feet away from the tree.

“This is something he should have been looking at five or six years ago and made plans for, but he’s turned his negligence into my problem,” she said. “He has the room and he’s not willing to talk about alternatives or anything like that.”

Sher said the garage is built too solidly and is too large to move.

“This is an old house and we’ve been here almost 50 years,” he said. “The garage was here then and the tree was not an issue, so it would have required a remarkable amount of foresight to anticipate this.”

He said removing this tree would barely make a dent in the neighbourhood’s canopy due to the high density of trees in the area.

“I can understand them being a bit upset,” Sher said. “There will be trees around still all over the place, so it won’t really leave much of a gap.”