• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Trees......(aren't we supposed to be BUILDING inspectors??)

C

Code Neophyte

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Central Missouri
Just curious - for those of you who do Property Maintenance / Nuisances - if your ordinances deal at all with trees? Ours has language about "diseased trees" (who makes such a determination? I can't find an ICC certification for "Tree Health Inspector") and considers them a nuisance - regardless their location - and we often notice and cite owners and even remove trees and bill the owner for the expense.

Is this common practice? Shouldn't trees be strictly civil issues between affected property owners (except in cases where public infrastructure is potentially involved)?
 
Ours are a civil matter between property owners unless the tree is in our downtown business district, then the municipality takes care of them.
 
We had to survey our entire city and then send requests of owners to trim trees that extend into the city street

It was voluntary so we saw "alot" of no compliance
 
We have a City Forester that takes care of the tree population, inspection, enforcement of removal, licensing of trimmers, on both public and private. Thank goodness, one less stupid part of BUILDING inspection we don't have to do.

Now, excuse me, I have to get back to forcing a homeowner to paint the back of a garage that a neighbor can see, but that his fence was 8" away, preventing her from getting to the garage wall. sheesh.......

snacks, change diapers, then naptime kiddos.........
 
That's not the point. I think we all really, really need to read that kind of stuff. You know... keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If we do not stay informed with the stuff we do not agree with then shame on us when it is integrated into the other codes and standards. And believe me it is coming. I'm not cracking on you at all. Just trying to encourage.
 
I do see your point - and I agree. It's another one of those inevitabilities. I just hate it that many of the features shift the focus away from the original intent of the codes - safety.
 
Well, JP, ya shamed me into at least downloading it and seeing what it says.....sheesh.
 
More and more municipalities are requiring a minimum number of trees and shrubs to be planted before a CofO. It's getting ridiculous. They are even making you choose trees from an approved list. I am beginning to see our lives and property being more restricted than if we lived in communist or even facists countries.

Uncle Bob
 
In my experience the municipal land development ordinances or standards and specifications will address trees. Some jurisdictions are very protective of their trees. The Gulf Coast has some beautiful Live oaks and diligently regulates these trees. The approved list of trees required by many jurisdictions is not particularly new and is to ensure people do not plant invasive species not natural to the area. Think "kudzu." Kudzu was introduced from Japan in the late 1800s and now spreads over several hundred thousand acres annually. Nasty stuff.

City of Biloxi

Sec. 23-16-11. Tree protection.

(a) Protected tree. Protected tree means a woody perennial plant that:

(1) Is located within a tree protective zone and has a single trunk which has reached a diameter of eight inches or a circumference of 25 inches, when measured 4 1/2 feet or 54 inches above the ground;

(2) Is an oak or magnolia or bald cypress tree, regardless of location, that has a single trunk which has reached a diameter of five inches or a circumference of 16 inches, when measured 4 1/2 feet or 54 inches above the ground;

(3) Any tree in or upon the streets, sidewalks or other publicly owned property of the city; or

(4) All members of the pinus (pines) family, as well as the Sapium sebiferum, commonly known as the Chinese tallow or popcorn tree, are specifically excluded from the definition of protected tree.

(b) Applicability.

(1) Tree permits required. The terms and provisions of this article shall apply as follows:

a. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, relocate or substantially alter or cause to be removed, relocated or substantially altered any protected tree, without first having obtained a tree permit to do so as provided in section 23-4-16.

b. Public utilities having the right to construct and maintain power or transmission lines on public streets or private rights-of-way pursuant to valid certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission are authorized to trim and remove such trees without further permit, as necessary for the safe and proper operation and maintenance of such lines.

c. City crews, without permits, shall be authorized to trim trees as necessary to eliminate the following:

1. Any limb which overhangs a public sidewalk and is considered a hazard to pedestrians;

2. Any limb which overhangs a public street and becomes a hazard to vehicular traffic; or

3. Any limb which obstructs the motorist's view of a traffic control sign or device.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy said:
Well, JP, ya shamed me into at least downloading it and seeing what it says.....sheesh.
Click to expand...
Me, too. And I'm a convert!!! This code recognizes us cyclists!! You now have to provide bicycle parking, shower and changing facilities, etc. for us!! Hopefully in a future edition they'll recognize the need for a cold beer after a long ride, and require building owners to provide us with that, too!!

I'm drafting my code change proposal as we speak.......
 
Back to my OP - I'm referring specifically to trees as nuisances. You know - the neighbor calling to complain about the tree in the next yard with a dead branch overhanging their property, and the "What are you guys gonna do" phone calls that ensue.

We have a City Forester, like Fatboy, but ours does not issue notices. We take the complaint, forward it to him to review, and then we issue notices, citations, etc.

It just really seems like a stretch to ever consider a tree a "nuisance" - and what qualifications should a 'forester' possess in order to make a determination as to whether or not a tree is "diseased"???
 
I spent way too much time this spring on a clients land clearing out a grove of non native invasive trees that had hung the natural succession of an abandoned pasture starting 45 or 50 years ago. The neighborhood has a no clearcut policy and is full of well intentioned folks who fancy themselves ecologically minded. The next door neighbor is a pulitzer writer/naturalist. The biscuits started flying about the rape of the land. The species is allelopathic, it secretes a chemical, that kills competitors...the native trees. It is known to form pure stands when it squeezes out all competition. I processed the sawlogs into lumber and stopped cutting at the perimeter where native babies were trying to make it. I was weeding their garden and explained to those who were interested. Unfortunately the main complainer owns the upwind side of the grove and it is a prolific wind seeder. We are funny critters.

And no, this is a job for a forester. Timber trespass begins at triple damages.

Theres a tree in my front yard that's been dying for 25 years. It is also part of my solar tempering strategy and it's replacement is coming along but will be awhile yet. We age at different rates, my money is on the old tree :)
 
Uncle Bob said:
More and more municipalities are requiring a minimum number of trees and shrubs to be planted before a CofO. It's getting ridiculous. They are even making you choose trees from an approved list. I am beginning to see our lives and property being more restricted than if we lived in communist or even facists countries.Uncle Bob
Click to expand...
I used to work with an inspector that called the required plants "fart-berry bushes".
 
Good story DRP.

Code Neo, unfortunately in many jurisdictions the title 'Building Inspector' or 'Code Official' includes many hats not originally intended. Your 'forrester' is probably a consultant rather than employee of the jurisdiction. As such, his expert opinion is what you will hang your hat on with regard to obtaining compliance. Qualifications should include a degree in Forrestry or something comparable. Arborist maybe?

Among the reasons already listed, regulating trees could include protecting existing or potential landmarks. NYS had one such National Landmark once upon a time. It was in the Adirondacks, and it was known as The Leaning Pine. Oldest and tallest known of its' kind - the year of George Washingtons' birth was several inches out from the core. The Giant Sequoias are other examples.
 
Our zoning code requires Board approval for the removal of any historic tree.

I know what you're asking yourself, I ask myself the same thing.
 
Code N.

There is nothing in the Maintenance code that deals with trees whether they are a nuisance or not. We can only step in once that tree falls on the roof and breaks some trusses. Your local ordinance sounds like a pain. Do you have a leaf ordinance too??? " My neighbor won't rake his leaves....what are you going to do about it mr neophite???" Good luck with the trees. You sure do have an interesting job....always something strange going on. Keep us posted.
 
Like Daddy-0, I would prefer not to deal with trees until they fall but unfortunately, my department is one of those where we all wear different hats. That being said, we don't consider a tree a nuisance until it is completely dead (absolutely no leaves when there should be) and then only if the tree poses a threat to neighboring properties should it fall. One jurisdiction I worked in had the "Tree City U.S.A." designation and I was charged with enforcement of the diseased/dying tree, then I would get the written opinion of a forester or arborist before taking any action.
 
No requirements here for tree removal. It is the owners responsibility.

On the other hand, I had a good friend of mine get in huge trouble with the City of Sunnyvale, CA, a few years back for removing a diseased, dead tree from his front yard. He did not remove the tree until after he had hired an arborist/forester and was told it had to come down. Expert also told him that nothing should be replanted in the area for at least 5 years due to the fungus that was present in the soil. The fungus had spread so far away from the tree that it killed a couple of pyracantha bushes too. He got a citation and a large fine for this action.

City insisted he had to replant immediately in the same spot with an 'approved tree' from their list. He appealed everything and won after fighting with them for a couple months. All this was about 10 years ago.

Sue, glad I don't have to be the tree police
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top