Tree Height: What does that rule means?

Started by JeanF4 • 9 replies • 1816 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

JeanF4 (California)
Posts: 7

Posted:

Our HOA's CC&R states that "trees shall not exceed the height of the maximum height of the roof at the pitch".

It is very poorly worded... The pitch is a slope or gradient, so that "at the pitch" is unclear.

Could anyone please clarify how high a tree can be in relation to the roof under that rule?

JackB8 (Virginia)
Posts: 141

Posted:

Sounds like trees can be no higher than the highest point on the house.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Jean,

I agree with Jack. Have you asked your Board to clarify this for you?

Tim

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

I third the interpretation.

The highest part of the roof -- "at the pitch" is superfluous because, as you rightly point out, "pitch" is an angle, a slope, a gradient, not a height.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Jean,

When one speaks of the "pitch of the roof" they generally are speaking of the highest point of the roof; however, pitch of roof = ratio of its height to its span.

However, I do believe this is an example of a CCRs restriction that definitely needs to be defined by the BOD. Most CCRs do give the BOD the authority to define the provisions contained therein. Their definition would have legal bearing should it be challenged by anyone. IMO, the intent of the developer was to not allow any tree that would grow higher than the house. Frankly, I don't understand the reason for this, but mine is not to reason why. . . .

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

True, the pitch is a slope, a gradient.

Applicable sentence:
"trees shall not exceed the height of the maximum height of the roof at the pitch".

The subject here is not the pitch, the subject is the maximum height of the roof that is pitched highest. Any other roofs of that dwelling that have a lower height at the maximum height of that pitched roof does not qualify. All trees can be lower around that dwelling.
I suspect the reason for the wording is there are different styles of dwellings, none shall exceed the specifications, and the actual height of the tree is dependent on the style of building, which makes sense.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Thx, Robert!

So if you were to define the statement what would you say? Would you state a maximum height for a single story house and another maximum height for a two-story house?

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Mary,
Yes.
But all this does is bring up different questions, as you know. A thirty foot tree next to a house creates a different visual effect than one at the end of the driveway. But, some one has to say yea or naye, or, fight it out, or, let everyone do what they want.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Robert,

Yeah. And it all has to do with how intrusive the board really wants to be. The only thing required in my HOA is 2 trees in the front yard and I'm not sure on the number of shrubs. Oh, and the trees can be any height you like! Have you ever seen how tall some of the palms can get????

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Mary,
Which of course brings up another issue tha doesn't seem to be covered here, in spite of the lawyerese language. What kind of trees have to be planted? And twenty years down the line chances are, there has been amendments made and what you used to be able to do you can't do now. The issue is apparently active right now, and someone has to say yea or naye........best it is the Board, or best it is the good boards that does it.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here