Arbitration due to Tree Height

Hello,

I'm new to this forum. Looking for advice from the helpful folks here.

A binding arbitration has been filed against us by our neighbors suggesting we have trees in our back yard and per covenants we need to trim them to 15 feet of height. When we bought the property we were told the trees are grand fathered in therefore do not fall in the height restrictions.
These tree are on a critical zone per the city and on a steep slope. We are concerned if the trees have to be chopped the stability of the land may be a huge concern.
Excerpts from the CC&R concerning Tree heights
1963 is the original CC&R with this language
"No tree, shrub, or planting of any type, other than that existing at the time this instrument was filed, shall be allowed to grow more than fifteen feet in height."

1983 is the amendment to the CC&R
"No tree, shrub, or plant of any type other than old growth Douglas Fir and Cedar trees that existed prior to June 10, 1963, shall be permitted to grow higher than fifteen (15) feet from its base except:
A. For lots that slope predominantly along the curb lot line such as, but not limited to, lots 73, 74, 93 through 98 and 114 through 116, no tree, shrub, or plant of any type shall be permitted to grow higher than the ridgeline elevation (see illustration #4).
B. For lots 62 through 67 and 69 through 72, no tree, shrub, or plant of any type shall be permitted to grow to a height that would restrict the view of the lake or mountains for property owners in the immediate area."

We have proofs including photographs and neighbors attesting to trees existing prior to 1963. The house was built in 1965 and the original owner owned the house till 2002.

We would like to know what are our chances against fighting it. We are planning to consult with an attorney as well.

I would say the opposite, nothing he quoted seems to apply to protecting his trees.

Even cities where they have a Tree Board and the such, the laws do not apply to pruning.

Contact Plant Amnesty in Seattle, their head wing nut Cass Turnbull is all OCD about "stop topping trees".

He was told (by some unknown person(s)) that the trees were grandfathered in. He has produced nothing in writing to this effect, and I think I'm safe in assuming these are not old growth doug or cedar, because one couldn't prune those to a 15' finished height.

A true old growth tree will be about 200' tall and 3' DBH (diameter at breast height). Since only old growths are covered by this particular exemption, I'd start there.

Old growth is a climax forest.

Final answer.

Only old growth trees are protected.

Those can be instantly deduced

Where are you? I can kind of guess wether they are true old growth or big second growth.

How big are the trees?

We are in Bellevue, WA. 174th pl ne, bellevue

It's not unlikely that there are in fact pockets of old growth there.

I think '83 trumps it

further food for thought:

What is old growth?







So, do your Covenants actually 'define' the term old growth ?

No the covenants do not define old growth. The term is only used in the para describing trees.

The original owner of the house when bought the home had the trees which were most likely taller and violating the CC&R per the photo evidence. When the CC&R got amended the trees were double the size and would have been in Violation day 1.

Per one of the neighbors who was instrumental in writing the amendment had this to say

Old Growth is not a name of something such as an "Old Growth Forest" but rather a description. That description actually consists of the entire portion that is underlined. It describes "older" Douglas Fir and Cedar trees THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO JUNE 10, 1963. It states that the "older" Douglas Fir and Cedar trees referenced are specifically those that existed prior to June 10, 1963. The trees in question, those on the slope above Northup DID in fact exist prior to 1963, having been spared specifically by the developers because of their importance in stabilizing the slope above Northup.

Did I break any rules Tim? Can you please guide me as which rule did I break. Apologizes if I did so. Not my intentions at all. Here to learn

Thanks.

The term "Old Growth" seems to have no generally accepted legal meaning. Those who wrote the 1983 amendment failed to define the term or to cite a reference where the term is defined. Therefore, it is vague and enforceable from the standpoint that it could be used to exclude some cedars that were growing on the site in 1963 but were not there a century earlier than that. In this case, the best that could be said is that old growth means anything that was growing before 1963.

Thanks Tim, I regretted after posting that. I have opened a ticket to hopefully remove the partial address.

174th is a big long street could be anywhere on that miles long road