Tree Ordinance for Belmont?

Tree Ordinance for Belmont?

There are 66 comments on the mybannernews.com story from Mar 1, 2009, titled Tree Ordinance for Belmont?. In it, mybannernews.com reports that:

One code being reevaluated is Belmont’s Tree Ordinance. The city’s Tree Board met last week taking steps to strengthen regulations that preserve mature trees.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at mybannernews.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1 Mar 1, 2009
I think we all want to preserve our trees. I would not agree with Chad that they are our "elders", but they are a needed resource.

I like having new development meet a minimum standard for tree preservation, but it seems hypocritical when you let them build these gargantuan houses on postage stamp lots and cram a zillion houses on a tract.

I also think the ordinance must not prevent a homeowner from removing a tree that threatens his house or other dwelling. Some trees need to be removed before they fall onto a house or building or powerline.

Bottom line - we do need a good tree canopy and more green space. It will become less and less available.
Average Joe

Pineville, NC

#2 Mar 1, 2009
sometimes trees get disease or ants or worms that make them suceptible to falling. they look healthy but aren't. i hope the new ordinace doesn't place the burden of proving a tree needs to come down on the homeowner. arborist are an expensive trade to have to use to back up a tree needs to come down. i think existing homes in older communities need to be given different consideration than new developments. sometimes trees need thinning or lot's clearing or sometimes I just might to get more sun on my deck. are my hands tied by the new ordinance? should I clear cut my backyard before the new ordinance goes into effect? i'm just hoping the new ordinace is balanced and fair and not just trying to prevent growth and spawl from coming to belmont at the expense of the current residents.

one more thing, if my neighorbor has a big dead tree in his yard but is too cheap to cut it down and it threatens to fall on my property, then what? This poses a hazard to my property, but in reality once it falls it's my problem, an act of nature. does the new ordinance take up this problem?

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3 Mar 1, 2009
Good questions!
Estelle

Pineville, NC

#4 Mar 1, 2009
Well, the trees may be young Chad's elders, but unless the are over 55, then I'm their elder :))

Do you think the younger trees respect me? Just teasing!
Guido

United States

#5 Mar 1, 2009
Average Joe wrote:
one more thing, if my neighorbor has a big dead tree in his yard but is too cheap to cut it down and it threatens to fall on my property, then what? This poses a hazard to my property, but in reality once it falls it's my problem, an act of nature. does the new ordinance take up this problem?
AJ - I had the same problem so I called my insurance guy. He said if I sent a certified letter to my neighbor telling him about the problem and asking him to remove the tree, with a copy to both mine and his insurance companies, then I would have no problems. His insurance company may take it down for him to avoid paying you damages when it falls. Maybe something has changed in the law since I had my problem. Have you talked to your insurance guy?
Average Joe

Pineville, NC

#6 Mar 1, 2009
Guido wrote:
<quoted text>
AJ - I had the same problem so I called my insurance guy. He said if I sent a certified letter to my neighbor telling him about the problem and asking him to remove the tree, with a copy to both mine and his insurance companies, then I would have no problems. His insurance company may take it down for him to avoid paying you damages when it falls. Maybe something has changed in the law since I had my problem. Have you talked to your insurance guy?
Thank you for the sound advice!
The Boss

Charlotte, NC

#7 Mar 1, 2009
You complain about these large houses on small lots...but in some ways they are actually better than smaller houses on large lots. They have less grass to have to waste water on and they use less land per family than older neighborhoods.

“.”

Since: Aug 08

Belmont, NC

#8 Mar 1, 2009
Average Joe wrote:
sometimes trees get disease or ants or worms that make them suceptible to falling. they look healthy but aren't. i hope the new ordinace doesn't place the burden of proving a tree needs to come down on the homeowner. arborist are an expensive trade to have to use to back up a tree needs to come down. i think existing homes in older communities need to be given different consideration than new developments. sometimes trees need thinning or lot's clearing or sometimes I just might to get more sun on my deck. are my hands tied by the new ordinance? should I clear cut my backyard before the new ordinance goes into effect? i'm just hoping the new ordinace is balanced and fair and not just trying to prevent growth and spawl from coming to belmont at the expense of the current residents.
one more thing, if my neighorbor has a big dead tree in his yard but is too cheap to cut it down and it threatens to fall on my property, then what? This poses a hazard to my property, but in reality once it falls it's my problem, an act of nature. does the new ordinance take up this problem?
Can you say: "Homeowner's Insurance!"

“.”

Since: Aug 08

Belmont, NC

#9 Mar 1, 2009
The Boss wrote:
You complain about these large houses on small lots...but in some ways they are actually better than smaller houses on large lots. They have less grass to have to waste water on and they use less land per family than older neighborhoods.
This is scary logic... Besides, if you plant the right kind of grass, you don't even need to water it. Also, you think using less land per family is a good thing?! I just don't think that cramming people together is a good idea...neighbors are great, but a little separation is a wonderful thing!
Average Joe

Pineville, NC

#10 Mar 2, 2009
David Ferrand wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you say: "Homeowner's Insurance!"
Your kidding right? So you think I should have to wait for the dead tree to hit my house, hire contractors to repair the house and pay a $2,000 deductible all because my cheapo neighbor refuses to cut his big dead tree?

The ordinance should definitely address dead trees and make home owners take them down. They could also fall on cars or people!

I had this happen before and when the dead tree finally fell and covered my entire yard, I had to pay big bucks to have it cleaned up. If it's in your yard you have to pay, even though your neighbor knew his tree was dead. Same principle applys to trees that are not dead, but that is a different story.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11 Mar 2, 2009
This discussion shows the potential value of topix - true issues, good discussion, and disagreeing without name-calling. I hope someone on city council is reading this thread and noting genuine citizen concern. Very valuable.

BardDeBelmont

“I Seek Not?”

Since: Aug 08

Belmont

#12 Mar 2, 2009
nugeme wrote:
This discussion shows the potential value of topix - true issues, good discussion, and disagreeing without name-calling. I hope someone on city council is reading this thread and noting genuine citizen concern. Very valuable.
"potential value"?
"Very Valuable"?

Why don't you explain these terms...please expound to see if hidebound.

It's obvious you think of this potential but yet always leave to allusion.
Curious

Salisbury, NC

#13 Mar 2, 2009
I wonder what kind of condition that big tree was in that fell on the library last night....

“.”

Since: Aug 08

Belmont, NC

#14 Mar 2, 2009
Average Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Your kidding right? So you think I should have to wait for the dead tree to hit my house, hire contractors to repair the house and pay a $2,000 deductible all because my cheapo neighbor refuses to cut his big dead tree?
The ordinance should definitely address dead trees and make home owners take them down. They could also fall on cars or people!
I had this happen before and when the dead tree finally fell and covered my entire yard, I had to pay big bucks to have it cleaned up. If it's in your yard you have to pay, even though your neighbor knew his tree was dead. Same principle applys to trees that are not dead, but that is a different story.
Not yours...theirs! If the tree was on their property, they should be liable for any damage caused by it...

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#15 Mar 2, 2009
Curious wrote:
I wonder what kind of condition that big tree was in that fell on the library last night....
I haven't been down Central - did it do much damage?
Curious

Salisbury, NC

#16 Mar 2, 2009
Yeah, it was a huge tree from the house next door. Looked like a power line was knocked down as well.
The tree fell on the children section of the library. The tree is still across the exit drive. There's part of a tree down in front of Belmont Middle beside the statue. Also noticed a large tree down at Stowe park beside the playground equipment.
Average Joe

Pineville, NC

#17 Mar 2, 2009
David Ferrand wrote:
<quoted text>
Not yours...theirs! If the tree was on their property, they should be liable for any damage caused by it...
Sorry for the misunderstanding David. The reality is they nor their homeowners is responsible for damages if they are not on their property. That is why I think the new tree ordinance should address it.

Speaking of downed trees, anyone see the one in Stowe Park that fell on the playground equipment?
Guido

United States

#18 Mar 2, 2009
Average Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry for the misunderstanding David. The reality is they nor their homeowners is responsible for damages if they are not on their property. That is why I think the new tree ordinance should address it.
Speaking of downed trees, anyone see the one in Stowe Park that fell on the playground equipment?
AJ - I'm telling you there is a difference between a healthy tree coming down due to "an act of God" and a rotten tree falling on your property - the latter is called negligence if the owner knows about it. If your insurance guy doesn't think so, I'd find another one.
Guido

United States

#19 Mar 2, 2009
YOUR insurance will pay for any damages to your property and then they will go after HIS insurance to recover the costs (subbrogation). Either way, you shouldn't have to pay anything other than your deductible, and maybe not even that if HE is negligent. Your premiums should not be affected.

“.”

Since: Aug 08

Belmont, NC

#20 Mar 2, 2009
My thought process was along the same lines as Guido's -- eventually the chain of payment should go back to the insurance of the property owner where the tree stands.

I did see the down branch in Stowe Park...couldn't tell from the road whether or not it damaged the playground equipment -- anyone get a closer look?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

A-Cappella Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man takes deal in murder, gets life without parole (Aug '09) Oct '17 YourNotGod 9
COLUMBIA SHARP MUSIC VIDEO: Coffee X Pillowtalk (Dec '16) Dec '16 cusharp 1
New Marc Anthony Cover by Collegiate A Capella ... (Oct '16) Oct '16 snarsher 1
i am (Sep '16) Sep '16 Paul 1
One Man A Cappella Cover Band (Aug '15) Aug '15 Rebecca Loops 1
News A Capella Group Turns Kelly Clarkson's Hits Int... (Jul '15) Jul '15 John Kenney is No... 1
News Belmont outlines accomplishments: City Council ... (Mar '15) Mar '15 Schmones 1
More from around the web