Trees more protected than your house| council arrogance

Eric Frei · 22nd April 2010, 10:22 PM

Interesting and although shot in Austin TX it demonstrates the issues faced daily by both engineers and arborists world wide, as local law protection orders give right of way to trees.

There's a video embedded on the news link that is a must see.

Some Austin homeowners call for reasonable tree ordinance | kvue.com | KVUE News | Austin, TX | Breaking News

Quote:

by AMY JOHNSTON / KVUE News

kvue.com

Posted on April 21, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Updated yesterday at 7:14 PM

Some Austin homeowners are fighting to remove large trees from their properties. They say the trees are damaging their homes, but city engineers disagree.

Lush green trees poke out from the line of houses in Carla Peebles Northwest Austin neighborhood.

"I love the fact that when you drive through Austin there are entire neighborhoods that you can't see because of all the trees," she said.

But there's one tree in particular that worries her.

"Oh this is new, actually. This little crack right here," she said.

A 100-year-old oak tree has cracked her patio in half.

"We contacted an arborist and a couple different companies to get estimates on how much it would cost to remove it if they thought it was a problem, and most of them felt that it probably was," she said.

But she needs city permission because the tree so large that it is protected.

"We've asked for a more thorough report from an engineer and that report has indicated that it's suspect at this time," said Michael Embesi, an arborist for the City of Austin.

The city recommended she remove the concrete and build a wooden deck.

"If we remove these steps and we discover that it is in fact headed underneath our foundation. We do in fact have to remove it, then we've spent the money on the step," said Peeples.

She's not alone. A Tarrytown homeowner literally had to cut away part of her house to accommodate a tree. An inspector noted the home was shifting, and cracks were forming in walls and ceilings. The homeowner says common sense says the tree is to blame for all the damage. Her letter, from an engineer, to the city said in part: "The removal of a tree as close to the home as this tree is essential as removal will reduce localized stresses due to the continued growth of the tree."

But the city isn't budging on this house either.

"It's not always black and white. So we go out and use our professional judgment to go out and to get each situation resolved," said Embesi.

The city gets between 50 to 100 requests each week. In more than half the cases, the trees stay.

That leaves some homeowners worrying that the trees are more protected than their investments.

Jeff Darby · 23rd April 2010, 07:25 AM

I think this beurocracy gone mad, If the tree is outgrown its location I feel the home owners wishes for removal should be approved if the request is supported by a qualified independant arborist.

Minor damage not presenting as a major threat to your life long investment for most hard working people, is a differerant matter altogether.

Reconmemdations such as cut out and re-fabricate that corner of the house is an unreasonable request...would this same arborist mandate such a radical step if it was his house?? I truely think not.

I am as green as the next arborist and strive to protect as many trees as possible, however I am also a practical arborist that thinks when they start doing damage to peoples lifes dreams (your home) or threatening human life, it's time to address the problem and remove the tree.

sueann · 23rd April 2010, 11:14 AM

I totally agree Jayd! it's just commonsense really.

glennak · 23rd April 2010, 10:24 PM

"The city gets between 50 to 100 requests each week. In more than half the cases, the trees stay."

If this is the case nearly 1/2 the trees go that's ~70 trees /week removed. I don't know what Texans are like when it comes to trees but most complaints I read when I contracted for a council were BS. Some rediculous thing like the phone line arcing to the tree and across the footpath. You have a chat and find out real problem; it drop leaves

Eric Frei · 24th April 2010, 07:37 AM

In a recent case here I was involved with, at a Body Corporate, a lilly pilly tree (many surface roots) had roots running along the concrete slab before the units and under. There was minor cracking. The tree also had repeated toppings but it made no difference to the root issue, and the tree had more growing to do.

So they call me out more so for a quote rather than consultation, they wanted to re-top and of course a debate breaks out about removal of the tree as expected when many people get involved.

Next thing a request for an arborists report is asked for, I suggested that an engineers report regarding damage to buildings etc is more appropriate. It was clear to all and easily seen what the roots were doing, just like in that video embedded in the news link.

They rang a building engineer and he confirmed what I said over the phone and told them that he'd charge $500 to pretty much tell them to get rid of the tree too. The tree is like 0.5m away from the concrete.

Later in conversation I concluded that some peoples eyes are connected to their asses not their brains, also depicted in the embedded video where obvious damage is debated about and throwing money at reports in many cases is a waste of money.

The tree is too close to install root barrier. The building would have to be modified etc.

Now going back to the NSW Land and Environment Court four questions to be satisfied.

Quote:

Has the tree caused damage to the applicant's property ?
Is the tree now causing damage to the applicant's property ?
Is the tree likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property ?
Is the tree likely to cause injury to any person?

I also think many councils regulations exclude trees within 3m of a building here.

The deeper issues for councils, like Glennak said, is sorting genuine from trumped up cases. If council themselves (like the Gold Coast) go about making the assessments and have to visit each site etc the cost and back log would be huge, so likely the council says "get a report".

I think the council needs to make a change, perhaps the 3m rule and adopt the four questions above as a criteria.

Jeff Darby · 24th April 2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennak

"The city gets between 50 to 100 requests each week. In more than half the cases, the trees stay."

If this is the case nearly 1/2 the trees go that's ~70 trees /week removed. I don't know what Texans are like when it comes to trees but most complaints I read when I contracted for a council were BS. Some rediculous thing like the phone line arcing to the tree and across the footpath. You have a chat and find out real problem; it drop leaves

Quote:

originaly posted by JayD :Minor damage not presenting as a major threat to your life long investment for most hard working people, is a different matter altogether.

This too is a problem when the "city" assesses the publics request for removal, trivial things like, dropping of leaves, minor lifting of pavers etc....must frustrate city officers and waste their time, most city sites have a guidelines of reasonable removal request including reasons for not approving requests.

23rd April 2010, 07:25 AM	#2
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,059	Re: Trees more protected than your house\| council arrogance I think this beurocracy gone mad, If the tree is outgrown its location I feel the home owners wishes for removal should be approved if the request is supported by a qualified independant arborist. Minor damage not presenting as a major threat to your life long investment for most hard working people, is a differerant matter altogether. Reconmemdations such as cut out and re-fabricate that corner of the house is an unreasonable request...would this same arborist mandate such a radical step if it was his house?? I truely think not. I am as green as the next arborist and strive to protect as many trees as possible, however I am also a practical arborist that thinks when they start doing damage to peoples lifes dreams (your home) or threatening human life, it's time to address the problem and remove the tree. __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

23rd April 2010, 11:14 AM	#3
sueann Former Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Hunter Valley Australia Posts: 599	Re: Trees more protected than your house\| council arrogance I totally agree Jayd! it's just commonsense really.

23rd April 2010, 10:24 PM	#4
glennak Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 179	Re: Trees more protected than your house\| council arrogance "The city gets between 50 to 100 requests each week. In more than half the cases, the trees stay." If this is the case nearly 1/2 the trees go that's ~70 trees /week removed. I don't know what Texans are like when it comes to trees but most complaints I read when I contracted for a council were BS. Some rediculous thing like the phone line arcing to the tree and across the footpath. You have a chat and find out real problem; it drop leaves

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Buying a house but it has too many trees	sleeper	Ask an Arborist here	6	27th April 2010 11:50 AM
Nambour Qld\| State Govt logs protected trees.	Eric Frei	Local law regs, start thread with County then State then Country	0	1st August 2008 11:18 PM
Is this how protected trees are pruned in the BCC area?	rangitata	General Tree Chat	8	26th September 2007 01:25 AM
Controversial pruning on protected trees Durack Primary School - QBuild	Eric Frei	General Tree Chat	21	13th September 2007 08:10 AM