REQUIRING PERMITS TO TRIM OR CUT TREES IN THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY: Does Not Imply That The Village Owns The Trees
Property owners are subject to all sorts of restrictions as to what they can and cannot do with their property and are routinely subjected to permitting. This does not make the governmental unit doing the permitting the “owner” of the property being permitted.
Zoning regulations permit and prohibit certain uses; construction codes permit and prohibit ways of building; common law imposes the duty of due care on property owners; and most jurisdictions in Michigan now require permits for trimming and removal of trees in their rights-of-way. Some, like Ann Arbor, have tree protection ordinances requiring permits and plans for trimming or removal of trees anywhere on a property. The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) outlines responsibilities, particularly in protecting certain tree species and maintaining environmental standards. Some trees, such as those in wetlands or along protected water bodies, may require a permit for removal to minimize ecological impacts.
This does not imply that the permitting jurisdictions owns the trees. Permitting is a health, safety, and welfare matter. As for trees, it operates to balance property owner rights with public interests, including environmental conservation and protection of utilities and the roadway. We all have an interest in the tree canopy and environment.
Galesburg requires permits to trim or remove trees in its rights-of-way. Galesburg Code Sec. 78-19. Vicksburg doesn’t require permits. Mendon doesn’t require permits. Colon doesn’t require permits. Battle Creek requires the property owners to maintain or remove the trees in the rights-of-way but requires a permit to do so. Battle Creek Municipal Code Sec. 1026.04. Where the jurisdiction is flush with money, like The City of Kalamazoo, it has assumed by ordinance the maintenance of trees in the rights-of-way. As noted previously, such a policy likely waives sovereign immunity for damages caused by trees that Kalamazoo maintains. It can afford it and the residents pay a lot more in taxes than we do in the Village. None of these is an assertion that the municipality “owns” the trees.
This present Village Council is socializing the cost of maintaining rights-of-way trees in the Village. In other words, it is making taxpayers pay for the maintenance and removal of trees on private property. This is especially onerous because less than half the property owners in the Village will benefit. And those paying to take care of someone else’s responsibility will get nothing in return.
So far as is known publicly at this point, the Council has paid for the removal of one tree, is considering reimbursing another property owner one-half the cost of the removal of another tree, and has expressed the intent to pay the entire cost for the removal of another very large tree that is right up against the property-owner’s house. And, it has a request to pay for the removal of a tree made by one of Bill Lewis’s supporters in the last election. It is unknown how many other “friends” of Bill Lewis have made requests that are not publicly known.
END
