Forum
« How to close / protect outside spigot for winter? Coda: Flooding last night in Clinton Hill basement »
November 23, 2007
Rear retaining wall damage from tree
Our read yard has a lot line retaining wall which has been damaged by our neighbor's large tree root system. The wall is cement and over the years, the roots have pushed the cement wall into our yard (it's buckling).
There are a few issues here:
1) the neighbors claim that they have no responsibility for the damage
2) the cement wall is impinging onto our property and will need to be back-filled, the wall removed and re-poured with re-bar
3) they won't let anyone onto their property to inspect, even though the wall is on our side of the lot line
Who in the city can we turn to get resolution to both the lot line wall and how we can fix the damage without having to sue them.
Comments
It's a horrible shame to cut down a healthy tree when a wall you chose to install (or former owner chose to install) gets damaged by a tree that was preexisting. A retaining wall is a choice, not a necessity, it's not like it's the foundation of your house. Plus the tree was there first, so building a wall there, you're going to know the roots might affect it. This is a totally different issue from when a tree is planted too close to a house. This tree was planted responsibly in the back of this neighbor's yard. It's like, are trees alowed to be planted anywhere? Seemingly not, for some people.
I understand you're frustrated, but some perspective is required here. Your wall is not more important than a tree that like I said, was preexisting. If you don't want a wall damaged by a tree, you or the former owner should not have built a wall so close to it. I can't see anybody insisting your neighbors pay to remove their tree, or pay for your wall.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 3:27 PM
Call 311. I think they have a new group of inspectors who deal with retaining walls. As someone who worked as a landscaper, home owners should think twice about the placement of trees. 20 years from know will the tree be damaging your foundation? In most Brooklyn backyards the trees are esentially self sowed unplanned accidents. Thank the birds or squirrles who did the planning. Also people forget that many trees have a limited lifespan, often shortened by bad prunning and lack of sun. Some of these backyard lot line trees are now reaching the end of their lives. Willows are especially prone to large branches snapping off in storms.
Do you own the retaining wall or is it your neighbors? A survey may be necessary. If it's your wall and your neighbors tree, than I would be careful about the DoB coming in as you will be served with the violation and the responsibility of repairing the situation. A retaining wall failure can cause a shift in the entire rear yard than could put stress on the stone foundation and cause cracking or worse. You do not mention the wall's height or the size of the tree. As a property owner you have the right to trim everything that extends over the property line. You do not have the right to kill the tree. For the cost of litigation you could probally remove the old tree and replant a better placed tree.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Such hostility, 3:27!
If the two houses were build at different levels, is it not likely that the retaining wall is as old as the house and pre-dates the tree?
That being said, I too would choose the tree over the wall, if necessary, but I don't think the OP is suggesting destroying the tree.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 23, 2007 4:33 PM
The OP is talking about suing their neighbor, Bob. That's what's called hostility. Plus protective feelings towards trees, when such vast amounts of human and financial and political resources are going towards protecting trees and planting MORE of them, is completely understandable.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 4:40 PM
Besides, what part of saying "I understand you're frustrated" is hostile? That post wasn't hostile. That's projection.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 4:42 PM
FWIW the OP is talking about "fix[ing] the damage without having to sue".
Since I don't have any horse in this race, I'll butt out now and let 3:27 et al rave all they want :-)
Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 23, 2007 4:53 PM
There's a way to calm a discussion without being judgemental and superior.
Just saying.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 5:00 PM
I'm always up and waiting for the posts of people like Bob Marvin, Masterplumber,Rick and maybe,
maybe,
that's it.
Yep, that's it; the rest is just a bunch of people with a lot of time in there hands, with nothing better to do.
This Christmas some of you should ask Santa for a LIFE.
PS.Happy Holidays.
Posted by: guest at November 23, 2007 9:24 PM
Nothing in the original post indicated the tree was there first. From where do you get that nonsense? Moreover, the post does indicate that the OP tried the nonhostile route of talking to the neighbor and getting an inspector to assess the situation, but the hostile, tree-hugging neighbor refused access. It's not a "totally different issue from when a tree is planted too close to a house." If the tree's roots or branches are impinging on the neighbor's property, they are limiting their ability to plant something more appropriate for the size of the space.
My advice: get a saw, an attorney, or both.
Posted by: guest at November 24, 2007 3:34 PM
Comment @ 3:27 makes this assumption: "A retaining wall is a choice, not a necessity,"
IF the original poster lives in Brooklyn, say Park Slope, the retaining walls are most definately not a choice. I have seen some retaining walls taller than 8' feet in some back yards. It's a way the land was graded to compensate for the sloping terrain.
Another assumption: "Plus the tree was there first, so building a wall there, you're going to know the roots might affect it".
Again, IF the house is in Brooklyn there is a good chance the home is 100 years old or older and likely built before the tree was planted.
I think to answer the OP's question since it is his retaining wall on his property, I would have a foundation contractor/engineer or mason experienced with building retaining walls take a look. There is also a good chance that the roots may be trimmed by an arborist so that the new wall will not be harmed.
Posted by: guest at November 25, 2007 12:54 AM
3:27 is a commie' tree-hugging nerd. Go save a spotted owl. I'm calling McCarthy on your ass.
Posted by: guest at November 26, 2007 10:17 AM
Retaining walls are usually necessity, not choice and often have been in place longer than the trees on the lot.
I've completed the landscape design course of study at NYBG and I've talked to two different tree services that have been out to remove 2 of my neighbors trees (mostly because of damage and disease). Both stated that when many of Brooklyn's trees were planted, not a lot of thought was given to what was being planted. Therefore, there are trees here in peoples backyards that would now be deemed poor choices to plant (weak limbed, much too large, invasive root system, etc). Not to mention that for most people it is too hard to imagine that 8' tree that they are planting will eventually be 60' tall. Many were planted way too close to lot lines and have become an issue for the neighbors. A poster above is also right in saying a lot of otheres are weed trees which would not be great choices either.
It's not about just loving trees- it's about also making sure that they are maintained and kept disease free, roots trimmed and pruned properly and professionally so that they don't become dangerous or problematic. Clearly the neighbor hasn't done this since an arborist would've something to say about the root situation. I like trees but you don't get to keep damaging your neighbors property because you have a mature tree you like.
Sounds like OP tried some of the nice ways to handle this and got no where. Unfortunately, that's when the lawyers have to come in. It would unfair for OP to get a buildings violation or have reduced access/use of his property for something that's not his responsibility. Sounds like he's already at least a grand in damages. Maybe if the tree can't be root pruned enough and must be replaced, OP can offer to buy the neighbor a new tree, more appropriate in size and sighting as a good will gesture.
Posted by: kensington gal at November 26, 2007 11:15 AM
it's amazing the assumptions people make. i am the OP and I am not a tree hater....but to put things straight, the two yards are at different levels and thus the wall is a 'necessity' not a 'choice'. The brownstone I recently moved into has been around for about 100 years, and the tree appears to be younger than that -- maybe 30 years? If the retaining wall were not in place, I would have a ton of cubic yardage of dirt of my neighbor's yard in my yard since it's about 4 feet higher than our yard. We are on a sloping street (St. Marks) and we're on the downslope side. The tree is in his yard and the wall is on our side of the lot line. His roots have damaged our wall and all I want to know is what my options are -- simple.
Posted by: AJAS at December 17, 2007 8:54 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.