Tree on Property Line

Page 3 of 3  
On May 28, 6:42 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

.
That story from Charlotte sounds like an excellent test case for the "tree ordinance" in that city... It sounds as if Charlotte is trying to dictate how the church must do its landscaping...
The church could quite easily defeat this tree ordinance on the basis that the method they use to trim their trees back is an aspect of the practice of their religion and is therefore protected from regulation under the First Amendment protections...
While the trees that were trimmed may in fact be damaged, the pictures posted with that article didn't show enough detail about how and where they were cut... But somehow this smells like the city wanting to extract its pound of flesh from an otherwise tax exempt organization...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 May 2011 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT), Evan

MANY cities have "tree ordinances" - and removal of hardwood trees, in particular, from a property requires permission from the city.
Also: Particularly on commercial and institutional properties, the landscaping, including the trees, is part of the registered "site plan" which comprises part of the "building permit". The site plan includes grading, stormwater management, and landscaping "features" such as trees and ornamental plantings, as well as burms, parking areas etc - and to change ANY of that requires permission from the building or planning departments. Usually there is a minimum number of trees that must be planted/maintained . A case could possibly be made for removat of trees that were planted in excess of the requirement, as long as they were not trees that were specified as "required" in that location. However, I would err on the side of caution and check with city hall before removing or altering in any major way, any tree on such a property.
I live dangerously and trim low-hanging branches from city owned trees on the boulevard in front of and beside my house when they get low enough to comb my hair when walking under them on the sidewalk or when mowing the grass -, or when they interfere with trees growing on my own property and the city crews have not done anything about it. They generally trim the street side to keep the busses and garbage trucks from catching and tearing off limbs but appear to be blind to the "pedestrian" side.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 29, 12:07 am, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

m...
"tree ordinances" are irrelevant if this church made the argument that such an ordinance impacted its ability to freely practice its religion which is a protected right under the first amendment...
it also seems that some ordinances only cover removal and replacement of removed trees but leave what constitutes "trimming" open to too much interpretation... a "trimmed" tree is *not* removed if it remains alive in the same spot even though its size may have been greatly reduced...
around my area of the country trees have to be kept trimmed so that there is a minimum of 6 feet from the lowest branch to the surface of the ground level wherever a tree is located near a sidewalk, walkway or pedestrian traffic, this is so people walking will not catch their head on low branches and you generally see 7 or 8 feet from the ground to the lowest branch overhanging a sidewalk or walkway because people over 6 feet tall are somewhat common...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't know if you're familiar with Crepe Myrtle, but it's a rather nice flowering tree that grows rather prodigiously. It's often hacked back to its trunks (known as "Crepe Murder") to keep it woody and from growing too large/fast. The article mentioned that they cut it back like that every few years. That's pretty normal pruning for Crepe Myrtle. It does *not* permanently damage the tree. In fact, the city does it with the Crepe Myrtles in the boulevards, here.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:48:13 -0700 (PDT), John

Since that tree existed before the houses did, it's not up to either homeowner to decide. It's up to God, mother nature, and the tree itself. If the tree has anything to say, it will want both homes torn down, because they are shading the tree from natural sunlight. So, in summary, the solution is to tear down both houses.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote:

Generally, each property owner trims those limbs which are above his property. And, generally, one can trim as they wish...in some locales, it is a code violation (probably to prevent spiteful acts) to mutilate a tree (as in trimming all of the growth from one side).
Ideally, the two neighbors could go together and either have the tree trimmed or removed. An arborist can thin out limbs so their is more light and dead twigs are removed, and do it so that the tree is still healthy and attractive.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.