Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Be aware of Seattle's Exceptional Tree rule
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm #612312
Robert2715ParticipantI love trees as much as the next guy, but be aware that once a tree, even if on private property, gets to 30 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground it becomes a “Exceptional Tree” and unless it is about to fall down, you can’t do much with it.
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/DR2008-16x.pdf
Just posting the info as most of the homeowners I know weren’t aware of this.
August 11, 2014 at 8:01 pm #811945
oceanParticipantGood to know, Robert! Thank you for sharing the information.
August 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm #811946
anonymeParticipantRobert, your interpretation is incorrect. Please read the linked statute again. There are many more factors involved in the “exceptional tree” designation than size.
I actually wish your version were accurate. Seattle has lost more than 70% of it’s tree canopy just in the last two decades, to the detriment of all who live here – with the exception of ravenous developers who still adhere to the slash and burn approach to lot development and construction. Restrictions on tree cutting, such as the one you cited, are a necessary response to this. Even then, the regulations don’t go nearly far enough IMO.
August 11, 2014 at 9:56 pm #811947
JanSParticipantthanks, anonyme…so I’m off the hook for that half dead cherry tree that we cut down in my front yard many years ago when I was a homeowner :). Yes, it pays to read the whole thing :D
August 12, 2014 at 12:05 am #811948
anonymeParticipantI’m not saying that no tree should ever be cut down. As a retired arborist, I’ve cut down a few myself! And dead or diseased trees can and should be removed. What I’m against is the clearcutting of Seattle (and elsewhere) to accommodate quick, ugly, and cheap development.
Jan – you’re off the hook, for sure!
August 12, 2014 at 12:34 am #811949
JoBParticipanttrees are exceptional unless they are in the way of a city project.. like the new rain gardens..
then they are a diseased nuisance that has to go :(
August 12, 2014 at 12:44 am #811950
JanSParticipantI agree, anonyme. When I sold my house in 1997, there were apple trees, plum trees just starting, a lovely cherry tree in the back yard, fir trees that we super healthy…new owners chopped every one of them down…(removed my rose bushes , too. Now there’s a sandbox and a trampoline. 3 lots…over 9000 sq feet…of bare nothing :(
August 12, 2014 at 5:51 am #811951
cbofParticipantIs there anything about type of tree? I’ve got a baby oak in a safe spot, growing naturally (like maybe planned by a squirrel?), but they grow so slowly I worry about its future if we move.
August 12, 2014 at 3:56 pm #811952
JoBParticipantWhen life changed and we moved from Vancouver, Washington to Minnesota (before landing here about 7 years ago) we left behind a yard full of trees.. 17 to be exact and a bird habitat that i had spent about 10 years building.
Today that property is bare… the new owners didn’t like cleaning up the “mess” and wanted a sports court in the lower yard.
they didn’t realize that taking out all of those trees left them without anything to absorb the water running down the hill they live on.. causing erosion problems on the sports court…
and that the trees that make the living room feel like a treehouse protected the house from the Gorge winds generated in the East…
they just saw the view they would have …
i often wonder if they have figured out that those trees were worth more than the view.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.