In some cities and towns in Massachusetts you need to pull a permit to remove a tree that is 6" in diameter or greater. 1. who pulls the permit, the home owner or the tree service? 2. Doe's this go on in other states?
Permit for tree removal
- Thread starter Vendetti
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Sunrise Guy
Addicted to ArboristSite
In Austin, TX., the HO can pull the permit, but the city likes to have a Certified Arborist's report concerning the tree in question. It is not mandatory to have the report, but it smooths the process, considerably. All things considered, I like to pull the permit when I'm hired to remove a tree of protected DBH (>19") Sometimes the city will want various conditions met before and after the removal, and if the HO pulls the permit, I sometimes don't find out about those conditions until it's too late to meet them.
ducaticorse
Addicted to ArboristSite
Newton you have to have the tree warden out to your property.
Same down here, tree work permits maybe required to sox or prune. The conditions vary a bit but generally, removal of tree over X size or pruning of % canopy Y are triggers so the HO or contractor needs to pay & give tree report works appease a Shire or Municipal tree warden that the task is required.
I am not a fan of these systems of Vegetation Protection Orders, VPO’s they are highly prescriptive, problematic, and expensive to administer methods of regulation. Invariably misunderstood they cause much conflict between Muni/Council and residents.
I understand the wish to control poor un-needed tree works but permits don't do that. They just put in a obstruction and $costs to the honest citizen who wishes to do the right thing with the right tree contractor and these controls are ignored by the dishonest citizen and any lesser tree huggin contractor who will find many ways around them.
I am not a fan of these systems of Vegetation Protection Orders, VPO’s they are highly prescriptive, problematic, and expensive to administer methods of regulation. Invariably misunderstood they cause much conflict between Muni/Council and residents.
I understand the wish to control poor un-needed tree works but permits don't do that. They just put in a obstruction and $costs to the honest citizen who wishes to do the right thing with the right tree contractor and these controls are ignored by the dishonest citizen and any lesser tree huggin contractor who will find many ways around them.
ozzy42
Addicted to ArboristSite
Here you need permits to remove most trees within the city limits.You can remove without permit, after severe weather,then get the permit after[$$$].
In the county ,it is mostly required during developmental stage,and for commercial property.For landscaping purpose on residential private property, you can do what you want with your trees.
I think the county has it right.It's your piece of dirt,do what you want with it.
In the county ,it is mostly required during developmental stage,and for commercial property.For landscaping purpose on residential private property, you can do what you want with your trees.
I think the county has it right.It's your piece of dirt,do what you want with it.
treevet
Addicted to ArboristSite
I agree with Ozzie but permits are becoming in vogue around here. Many of these tree managers/wardens are of limited knowledge with maybe a CA earned in a year, in other words, armchair arborists.
What about after a storm with compromised, damaged trees? The only good thing about it is that if a tree is marginal and they (city, armchair arb, whoever) say the tree should stay, then the liability clearly is in their court if the tree fails causing damage or injury.
What about after a storm with compromised, damaged trees? The only good thing about it is that if a tree is marginal and they (city, armchair arb, whoever) say the tree should stay, then the liability clearly is in their court if the tree fails causing damage or injury.
Not entirely seems a lot depends upon circumstance. Down here a court of appeal upheld a case for a Muni/Shire of a protected tree vs plaintiff head.
NSW Court of Appeal decision where a council was successful in defending a claim for injury caused by a falling tree branch in circumstances where council had earlier refused the property owner permission to cut down the tree.
The Court found that the council had not been negligent in their inspection of the tree and decision not to permit its removal as “…the risk was not shown to be such a risk that a reasonable person would have authorised removal of the tree. The risk of substantial damage to property or significant injury to person was not shown to have more than a relatively small probability, or to be any different from the risk posed by other trees of a similar type in positions in the vicinity of property and/or frequented by persons.”
Rhodes v Lake Macquarie City Council and another [2010] NSWCA 235
Whether right or wrong this is what the court said. Again I don't fully support local permits. I reckon the Arb industry could or should be better tree managers than a Gumnut bureaucraey.
treevet
Addicted to ArboristSite
There certainly is a huge disparity in the quality of the "inspection" and "inspector" that obviously should be better defined by our ANSI and the equivalent in your country. A drive by by an armchair arb and a look around with a real arb with his nose scraping the bark 70 feet up in the air will yield significantly different results.
Similar threads
