The City of Rochester Hills has been informed of the danger of dead trees on Private Property

August 24th 2009

Rochester Hills prides itself as “Tree City USA”. However, the city is saturated with dead and diseased trees. It is not a welcome sight for visitors exiting M 59 and Crooks to be greeted by stands of dead trees.   

With the city’s population and development growth, the original tree ordinance is not comprehensive enough.   

The goal of a tree conservation ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of life within the city by protecting existing trees and woodlands and in maintaining property values.

Dead trees should typically be removed immediately, because once a tree dies, decay organisms invade and structurally weaken the tree. Large trees present a greater hazard because they can strike targets at considerable distance and cause more damage when they fail. A structure close to a hazard tree may be demolished completely. Also, branches start falling out of trees soon after death, and branches can be lethal. There is a potential for serious loss to property or human life. Furthermore, dead trees are not all the same - they are unpredictable. 

Many of the large dead trees are at significant risk of falling onto a neighbor’s property, with winter storms and high winds compounding the potential danger. Dead trees need to be removed to ensure safety.   

A search on the Internet revealed there are many cities in the USA who require homeowners to remove dangerous trees. Those trees are a big liability, they are an eyesore as well. Diseased trees (Dutch Elm disease, Emerald ash borer, Oak wilt) constitute a potential threat to healthy trees.

Perhaps most of you have never experienced life with dangerous tree’s or see the damage they are capable of doing.
I have.   

Currently, I am mentally terrorized by my neighbor’s over 120-feet tall dead and debarked Cottonwood tree (Poplar, Populus) for over a year. This huge tree is leaning towards my house and it is practically certain that the tree is going to fall onto and significantly damage my house and injure it’s occupants. The potential and actual dangers caused by the dead tree have directly and proximately caused disruption and loss of enjoyment of my property. This dead tree is visible from every location on my property and endangers our life. My friends refuse to visit my property because of the trees danger to their life. I had to decline my participation in a garden tour benefiting the Rochester Hills Museum since I was afraid the tree or part of it could fall and injure someone. During high winds we have to seek shelter in the basement. I am unable to sleep and are constantly worried.
This tree interferes with the enjoyment of my property.   

Unfortunately, the tree in question is not threatening any public street, walkway or utility and the removal of the dangerous tree is not enforceable by the current ordinance. The only option would be to prepare a complaint for nuisance and preliminary injunctive relief in circuit court and let a judge decide.
There are many homeowners faced with the same dilemma.  

I therefore ask City Council to introduce an amendment to the ordinance, which requires the removal of dead and dangerous trees on private property. 

The city’s of Southfield has adopted such an ordinance and the compliance department confirmed, that all homeowners comply and the ordinance does not present any problems. I received the same feedback from other cities as well. Some cities have several tree removal contractors lined up who provide their services at a discount rate.

I hereby propose an amendment to the cities tree ordinance: 

The city shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or diseased trees on private property within the city when such trees constitute a hazard to life and property, or harbor insects or disease, which constitutes a potential threat to other trees within the city. Private property owners shall have the duty, at their own expense, to cut down and remove any trees upon their property which are dead or harbor a disease, or which are so damaged as to be a and in danger of falling, thereby causing damage to person or property of others. Owners shall, at their own expense, remove such trees. 

There is no reason or excuse why our city cannot adopt such an ordinance as well. 

Also, Rochester Hills needs an ordinance requiring property owners to cut obnoxious weeds on the road and public right away. Rochester Hills ordinances are not strict compared to other cities. 

Let's keep our City beautiful! 

Siegrid Stern 

Return to Garden Splendors from around the World