I have been in conflict with my neighbor almost since the month we moved in. He's not a nice man. But lately it has mellowed into a form of benign ignorance since we have no reason to talk to each other. There is only one issue which will not go away and that is a large oak tree growing over my bedroom. From any angle, it appears that the tree is on my property but it is actually growing on his side of the fence at a 30 degree angle toward my property. Virtually the entire crown hangs over my property like some kind of pool umbrella.
Now comes the interesting part. Tree law is both well developed and maddeningly vague. There is a near absolute law that allows a neighbor to trim an offending branch at the lot line. Since the trunk of this tree passes over the lot line below the crown it is tempting to argue that I can just cut it down at the lot line and be done with it. There are two problems; first a more recent court decision limiting that right and second the fact that the tree is a protected species.
In the past 20 years there was a precedent set that limits self-help which prevents trimming of a tree that would harm the tree. I saw one site that goes so far as to suggest that even ruining the symmetry of the tree could count as damage. But more reasonably it limits the amount of trimming to 30% and prevents cutting any roots that would cause harm. Since the trunk of this tree would still hang over the property it would do little good in removing the hazard.
The tree is a river oak. That species requires a permit to trim after its trunk reaches 12" in diameter. The county came to take a look and agreed that it could be removed. However only the owner of the tree has the ability to do so.
When confronted with all this, the neighbor replied that the tree hasn't done any damage yet and therefore it is ok. I won't even discuss the speciousness of that position.
So on closer examination the law comes down to two points. Is the tree subject to premature failure? Of course an oak can live for many decades in the right environment. This one clearly cannot due to its angle of growth which places a great deal of stress on the roots and its limited land. As a young tree it has a significant tap root that will give it stability. But as a tree of this species matures the tap root is replaced by horizontal roots which cannot maintain this torque.
If there is no foreseeable damage to be cause by a tree falling, the law is not inclined to coerce action. However when the premature failure of a tree has a clear target it falls into a category known as a hazard tree. Since the trunk and major branches are inches from my roof there can be no doubt that this is a high-value target should this tree fail.
Previously this same neighbor had a group of liquid amber trees, one of which was rubbing his gutter. Whenever there was a light breeze you could hear the gutter pop as the trunk rubbed it. During a storm it broke at that point falling in my yard damaging my gutter and fence. Since he claimed it an act of god he refused to take any responsibility for it despite the fact that he could have and should have know that allowing the tree to repeated rub against his gutter was injurious to the tree. By failing to properly maintain his tree he took on liability for its damage. However the prospect of taking his to court over the damage wasn't worth the trouble.
This prior experience with his makes me wary of ignoring the potential hazard and I am not willing to wait until the tree falls. Where I come from you avoid injury instead of waiting for it to occur and then arguing about it. Perhaps my neighbor comes from someplace outside the galaxy.
No comments:
Post a Comment