[DC] Hazardous tree not ruled as hazardous on permit removal

[Anonymous]

We have a 100 ft or so tall cedar next to our house. It has a split in ththe trunk and is hollowing out. Oue neighbor is worried it may fall on her house.

We had an arborist from Adirondack Tree Company check it out (they seem to trend more towards saving vs removal). They recommended removal for safety.

We put in for a permit with urban forestry and they deemed it non hazardous, so the removal permit would cost over $4500. I have no plans to pay that amount. Does anyone know how or if I can dispute this determination?

[Anonymous]

Then have the neighbor pay or appeal it?

[Anonymous]

Contact your council member. I know someone who had a similar experience and the council member was able to get the permit fee waived.

[Anonymous]

Pour a bunch of round up into the trunk. The tree will die. Then the city will take it down for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pour a bunch of round up into the trunk. The tree will die. Then the city will take it down for you.

round up won't do it. roundup only works on chlorophyl. IE leaves.

drill som eholes and pour in stump rot

the DC tree permitting is strictly money making venture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pour a bunch of round up into the trunk. The tree will die. Then the city will take it down for you.

round up won't do it. roundup only works on chlorophyl. IE leaves.

drill som eholes and pour in stump rot

the DC tree permitting is strictly money making venture.

And then they'll have an even more hazardous tree standing there for a while. What if it falls on the neighbor's house and it can be proven that the homeowner poured stump rot into the tree? The homeowner would then be liable for all the damages rather than the insurance company.

[Anonymous]

Appeal it and meet the arborist. Site the problem the other arborist report.

[Anonymous]

You are only responsible for damage if you knew it was bad and did nothing. You now have a report denying it is a hazard. Let it fall, not your problem

[Anonymous]

Get a second opinion. The first arborist may have been "over-enthusiastic".

We get our trees trimmed by someone we trust, called Bob Taylor (not talkative, but absolutely knows his job!). He monitors one of our trees that is diseased and that ultimately will have to go, but instead of charging us at least $4,000 to get rid of it (it's very wide and used to be very tall), he has been cutting off branches shorter and shorter each year, and it will be cheaper to fell when the time comes.

[e-mail]
[phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are only responsible for damage if you knew it was bad and did nothing. You now have a report denying it is a hazard. Let it fall, not your problem

Good advice, unless you’re actually a decent human being that gives a sh** about other people’s safety.

[Anonymous]

Have the arborist from Adirondack write up the hazardous report - there's a standard for doing it. Go back with that.

Pro-tip - if you want to have a tree removed in DC, go in with your own arborist's report about it being hazardous. That makes it more difficult for the city to say it's not, and they are inclined to find trees not hazardous in an effort to preserve tree canopy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pour a bunch of round up into the trunk. The tree will die. Then the city will take it down for you.

Putting aside whether this will work (it won't, at least not quickly), the city won't take down a tree on private property. All you'd do in this situation is create for yourself an obligation to take it down or face legal liabilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the DC tree permitting is strictly money making venture.

This is not true. It is designed to discourage developers from clearcutting every property and leaving the city without trees.

If anything, the permit cost for removing healthy trees is far too low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the DC tree permitting is strictly money making venture.

This is not true. It is designed to discourage developers from clearcutting every property and leaving the city without trees.

If anything, the permit cost for removing healthy trees is far too low.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the DC tree permitting is strictly money making venture.

This is not true. It is designed to discourage developers from clearcutting every property and leaving the city without trees.

If anything, the permit cost for removing healthy trees is far too low.

Agreed.

but when you have a certified arborist reporting the tree is severely compromised, it should not even be a question. the fact that DC still want money for a take down permit is crazy

I have an oak tree that is 20" in diameter that has grown through a historic wrought iron fence. its dropping 2-3" caliper branches on a regular basis. Branches that are dropping on a DCbikeshare rack. DC abortionist won't let us take it down with out paying the fee. they consider it a healthy tree. I don' thave a problem with the charging a fee to cut down healthy trees.