horrified on Aloha/Paradise
 

Drove past 907 Aloha Way (corner of Paradise in old section) and was HORRIFIED by what someone did to a 200+ year old tree. I mean, isn't that against the law?

Can you describe what they did?

This was a very helpful post. :024:

more on horrified...
 

They topped and cut back an old live oak so severely that there are literally no leaves or branches left on the tree, just bare amputated stubs. No sign of disease or rotting branches on the stubs.

You apparently do not know how costly it is to keep up with a big tree. It is less expensive to cut it back really good then to just keep pruning it. If you don't like the way it was cut you could offer to help financially with the tree in the future and then it would be cut your way. In fact you could start a Live Oak trimming service that would trim the trees for free. Let me know when you do this as I will use the service.

Since we don't know the circumstances we have to believe that whatever the homeowner did to the tree was done with permission from the appropriate agency. The above post seems overly sarcastic and rude. There is no need to post a reply like this. The original poster was just asking a question. Why do some folks here seem to delight in pouncing on those of us who are curious about the happenings in our community?

I drove by there Friday and the workers were still there. The tree was cut back severely, and my first thought was that they were going to cut it down. It shocked me at first, then I remember the limb that fell on the golf carts at the Heron recently. Perhaps the tree was hanging over the house and the homeowner feared a limb could fall and damage the home and/or the residents. I agree that there must have been a good reason to do this or permission wouldn't be granted. Or perhaps the rules are different in that section. Where we live, you can't remove a tree larger than 4" diameter I believe.

We drove by and saw the tree tonight. I was curious and since I live on the Historic Side, I thought I'd see it firsthand. It was a huge tree that was hanging over three houses. The homeowners didn't cut the tree down, but they gave it one heck of a pruning. We had a water oak trimmed back in our front yard. Just our half of the tree cost $700 and it was only the lower branches.


That water oak is less than 20 years old is at least 70 feet tall with roots pushing up everywhere. The live oak in the back doesn't grow as fast but is an absolute pain in the .... acorns. When we first bought the house, we said, "Oh, look at the beautiful oaks. Look at the beautiful shade. Oh, we love those oaks." Now we say, "Look at those nasty leaves and pollen and acorns and stains on the driveway and stupid squirrells. I'd love to cut you down."

Remove no, but you can trim it.
Go here and you can learn for sure.

http://www.districtgov.org/departmen...standards.aspx

Sounds like a bad haircut I once had....it'll grow back if they pruned it right

To answer the original posters question, here is the summary of the deed restriction on trees from the Deed Compliance page of the VCDD web site:

• Tree Removal: No tree with a trunk four (4) inches in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining written permission.

So if this seemingly radical prunning and topping of the tree was made without approval and it results in the death of the tree, they could be in for a hefty fine or requirement to replace the tree with a healthy mature one at great expense.

service
 

I do know how costly it is, as I happen to have several large trees on my lot and get them trimmed regularly. If homeowners don't like the expense of caring for large old trees, there are thousands of lots with no trees that would be easier and less expensive to care for - so sell your house with big trees intact and buy one with none. Please.

Trees are living things and should be treated accordingly.

Up north we just wait for the big ice storm to do the trimming for us

:bigbow::bigbow::mademyday: