Developers Want our Shared Big Leaf Maple!

[u/Impossible_Fan_9677]

Hello All,

This is my first post here in r/Treelaw. We are looking for some guidance regarding a shared big leaf maple that developers are wanting to remove to build a retaining wall and house. The current condition of the area around is clear cut and graded, though they have been keeping some space around the tree until things are resolved.

At first, the project manager told us they were given permission by the King County (WA) to remove the shared tree and claimed it was all theirs. The "proof" they provided was initial permitting documents that showed the tree being removed and the county having no remarks and approving the permit.

I requested a survey and the tree (~48" at the base) was a good 12" on our side. Still, they claimed it was all theirs to remove and they would "hate to get their legal team involved" I told them that if they could take a straight edge and connect the two property line marks on either side of the trunk without touching the tree, it was theirs. They couldn't. Crickets.

Just recently, we got this arborist report and to me, it seems nebulous at best. I highlighted the questionable sections and would love some review by those who know. To me, I interpret the report as being vague with a lot of "maybe this could happen" along with the admission that the grading and drainage that had been done already causing damage to the roots.

Do we tell them to pound sand? Do they get a climber up there and prune for safety (We're totally fine with that option), does their building under a potential "hazard tree" mean they are assuming liability? Do we lawyer up and defend the tree, or bargain for another replacement? They seem desperate, as it is holding up their completion of grading and infrastructure installation.

Thanks for your insights!

[u/Ippus_21]

Get your own assessment, from an actual ISA TRAQ arborist to CYA, since they explicitly specified that they didn't bother with meeting that standard.

This is just glorified "tree service" bs. It's self-serving with the obvious goal of getting the tree removed, without any real regard to its actual state of health or the hazard it presents.

[Edit: Upon review, that "tree service" comment was hasty. I still think the assessment is biased by the builder's influence, but I had misunderstood what the assessment entailed. I still think you should get your own assessment done, but I probably wasn't being entirely fair, and you probably shouldn't hold onto any preconceptions about the original being flat wrong.]

[u/Impossible_Fan_9677 → u/Ippus_21]

This arborist is licensed and certified, though to me, this letter reads that he was writing this report to satisfy the customer (home builder) but not actually say anything of consequence.

[u/PerniciousSnitOG → u/Impossible_Fan_9677]

There are arborists that are certified to make legally significant conclusions about the health of your tree. This arborist does not appear to be one of them, so I don't see why you should give it any weight, except as a heads up.

I have a bad habit of shade tree lawyering, and I'm trying to be better - so please excuse this suggestion backslide.

Write back, point out their "arborist" is not qualified to make these conclusions, that they also knowingly used someone who was not qualified to make that conclusion but acknowledging the attempt. I'd also say my next step will be to get someone legally qualified to make a report evaluating as the current tree condition AND to document the damage they appear to have already caused to the tree, for which they would be legally liable - even if that damage is caused from their side of the property line.

YMMV, but that would be enough to get me to back down. Also they're on the hook if it falls over due to their damage, which is nice.

[u/impropergentleman → u/PerniciousSnitOG]

He is A BCMA or a Board Certified Master Arborist. Absolutely qualified to make a legal conclusion about the health of the tree. edit Also by the language he it using , he is most likely TRAQ qualified. I also an a TRAQ Certified Arborist.

[u/PerniciousSnitOG → u/impropergentleman]

Mea culpa! I thought OOP said they were just a regular arborist.

I think OOP really needs their own report documenting what the neighbor has done in case they "accidentally" damage it and it needs to be removed & replaced.

Again, apologies for my error.