Why do developers clear all mature trees from lots when they build?

[Anonymous]

Well I mean I know why they prefer it, to make construction easier, but why do owners buyin tear-downs ask them to do this and why do people buying new houses buy them when the lots have been cleared? They look horrible. As many mature trees as possible should be left. I've been watching a new house buying built off old dominion right past balls hill road and the builders cut every single tree off the lot before they started building. Insane!

[Anonymous]

It's required because the root systems are too large and trees shouldn't hangover the house.

[Anonymous]

Old growth trees are prone to fall over . Most of the trees are bad I this area and fall easily.

[Anonymous]

They don't do it to save money or because they hate trees, that is for sure. For our new construction house in fairfax county, we had to pay extra to get several large trees outside the limits of clearing taken down. These trees were in bad shape and would have needed to come down in the next 5-10 years anyways, and it is more affordable to do this when you already have the lot clear with heavy construction equipment on site.

That said, the county arborists make you replace the tree canopy that is removed, so now we have to plant 12 new trees on the lot at even more cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Old growth trees are prone to fall over . Most of the trees are bad I this area and fall easily.

OMG you are so full of shit, your eyes are brown...


The chance of a large tree surviving the construction vehicles is rare. the soil compaction by the equipment, the addition of soil and grade changes would usually kill a tree that wasn't adequately protected. So as others have mentioned, while you may want to keep the tree, its better to cut it down and replant....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's required because the root systems are too large and trees shouldn't hangover the house.

No - that is wrong!!! They do it because it is cheaper and easier for them! Please - if you are buying or looking to build in an established neighborhood, please tell the builders you want mature trees on your property! My neighbors have had to get in front of bulldozers to stop them! We've gotten the County involved too and have managed to save some trees, but we need owner / buyer demand to builders!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's required because the root systems are too large and trees shouldn't hangover the house.

No - that is wrong!!! They do it because it is cheaper and easier for them! Please - if you are buying or looking to build in an established neighborhood, please tell the builders you want mature trees on your property! My neighbors have had to get in front of bulldozers to stop them! We've gotten the County involved too and have managed to save some trees, but we need owner / buyer demand to builders!

+1 lazy builders want to clear all the land so they can drive around on it easily and they also want to sell the the lumber. Also it's such BS to claim that a mature tree "will have to come down in 5-10 years." These trees are 150-250 years old. They aren't likely to die in the next few years.

[Anonymous]

I just went through this process. Believe it or not, Montgomery County basically requires the trees to come down to make room for underground wells as part of the rainwater management plan for a new construction permit. We had to fight tooth and nail to keep a beautiful old tree and were only able to keep it by agreeing to take down two smaller ones. Trees do serve a water management function (roots absorb runoff) but apparently a tree is not as good as a well.

[Anonymous]

Our developer didn't and I wish he had. We ended up having to pay to get trees removed that were way too close to the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just went through this process. Believe it or not, Montgomery County basically requires the trees to come down to make room for underground wells as part of the rainwater management plan for a new construction permit. We had to fight tooth and nail to keep a beautiful old tree and were only able to keep it by agreeing to take down two smaller ones. Trees do serve a water management function (roots absorb runoff) but apparently a tree is not as good as a well.

MoCo here and can confirm that. Also, they charge a tree tax of $500/tree, based on lot size. You can plant a tree or pay the fee. The issue is the trees need such a separation that often they don't fit -- so it ends up being easier to just pay the fees rather than install non-confirming trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just went through this process. Believe it or not, Montgomery County basically requires the trees to come down to make room for underground wells as part of the rainwater management plan for a new construction permit. We had to fight tooth and nail to keep a beautiful old tree and were only able to keep it by agreeing to take down two smaller ones. Trees do serve a water management function (roots absorb runoff) but apparently a tree is not as good as a well.

Lol who would live in that nanny state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our developer didn't and I wish he had. We ended up having to pay to get trees removed that were way too close to the house.

They weren't "too close" to your house. Is that what the tree cutting man told you? To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went through this process. Believe it or not, Montgomery County basically requires the trees to come down to make room for underground wells as part of the rainwater management plan for a new construction permit. We had to fight tooth and nail to keep a beautiful old tree and were only able to keep it by agreeing to take down two smaller ones. Trees do serve a water management function (roots absorb runoff) but apparently a tree is not as good as a well.

MoCo here and can confirm that. Also, they charge a tree tax of $500/tree, based on lot size. You can plant a tree or pay the fee. The issue is the trees need such a separation that often they don't fit -- so it ends up being easier to just pay the fees rather than install non-confirming trees.

A tree tax? Are you joking? What kind of bizarro land are you guys running up there in MD.

[Anonymous]

Maryland sounds awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I mean I know why they prefer it, to make construction easier, but why do owners buyin tear-downs ask them to do this and why do people buying new houses buy them when the lots have been cleared? They look horrible. As many mature trees as possible should be left. I've been watching a new house buying built off old dominion right past balls hill road and the builders cut every single tree off the lot before they started building. Insane!

I hate to break it to the tree huggers, but simply put, trees are a risk. I live in a neighborhood with plenty of "mature trees" and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a house where branches are over the house. If you've been in this area for any period of time you've undoubtedly seen houses get smashed like twigs from a large tree or branches falling down. Let's see, you're going to spend $600k building a house and not remove a tree that's too close to your house? That's called dumb. I like big trees, I just think they have no place close to the house. Unfortunately these days lot sizes keep shrinking and houses get larger so there's a lack of space for big/nice trees. It is what it is..