On Sat, 28 May 2011 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:
On May 28, 6:42Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so-
hypothetical situation:
And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course.
Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property
was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the
owner was away. Â*How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there
in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was
this limb that was endangering his neighbor?
I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the
person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off
at the property line anyhow. Â*Anyone who says that's not the law
should say what country and state or province they are talking about.
No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post.
It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live
next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there.
Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or
not.
Just don't do it in Charlotte.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...rch-fined-for-...
$4000 fine, $100 per branch.
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
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.