Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Pennsylvania
Legal advice on city-owned trees
I wish to replace 2 trees that, although they are on my property, are considered street trees by the City. I need a permit to do so and despite numerous phone calls, the city's department has never answered.
My family, including myself, is allergic to them. It makes it very difficult cutting the lawn or working in the yard near them. I did not know this before I bought the house. My daughter is showing symptoms of this as well, and she is only 1 & � years old. Documentation of such was sent to the city.
My yard is maintenance-free, the exception being these trees, I had lower back surgery in 2000 and it is very difficult for me to rake or dispose of these leaves.
My roof is new; yet it is constantly being hit by fallen branches off these trees� anytime the wind is harder then 10mph.
Bark and limbs are constantly falling off the trees and hitting my property and street. I sent the ciy photo documentation of the large 10� limb that landed on my front sidewalk and more.
I found out from an outside source that the city has made the decision to deny my permit application, citing the city's 'green' reputation.
Do I have any legal recourse for my situation? Is it possible to fight the city? I cannot stand these trees.
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Legal advice on city-owned trees
If you decide to cut down these trees be prepared to be cited and possibly sued by the city. Trees just don't grow to mature size overnight, and you are mistaken, the trees are on City property...NOT YOURS, your property line ends where the sidewalk begins, check your survey or your legal description. In regards to your medical condition...it's called due diligence, next time check out your property prior to buying it...this is something you should have noticed.
Re: Legal advice on city-owned trees
I respectfully disagree with my colleague. You asked if you have recourse where trees located either on or adjacent to your property are a nuisance.
The place where your property ends and city property begins is a constant source of concern. In most instances a property owner owns to the edge of the roadway though the locality owns what is know as a public easement (right of way). The public easement prevents property owners from altering that portion of the property in any manner contrary to the needs of the public. The property owner still owns and must maintain the land. Often the locality will offer some maintainance such as tree work or sidewalk repair. But the homeowner is still responsible for sidewalk maintainance and care of the land (mowing, raking removing fallen branches, shovelling snow).
Here you moved into a situation where due diligence would have helped but you are not necessarily without remedy. You must document not only the type of tree but also the specific allergies of yourself and more importantly your child. If your request is denied you will have a means of appeal. You will be required to have exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies before you can pursue legal means.
There was very recently a case in Connecticut with the exact same circumstances where trees were removed by a locality for exactly the same reason. The city originally balked but the homeowner presented a case and was able to pursuade the city to remove the trees.
You must demonstrate to the locality how it is to your mutual benefit to replace the trees. Showing that you will bear the costs is tremendous. Showing that you will replace the trees will also be beneficial. And any documentation you can provide about the trees will help such as the specific type and their lineage. If the trees are a non-native species then there may even be a need for their removal (conversely you may find they are protected).
The key is to use the system and not get bowled over by it. You may have luck doing this on your own or you may need an attorney. Do stop fighting for your rights.
Call me if you need assistance with this or any other legal matter.
Regards,
Roger Traversa
Phone: 215.279.8940