# Trees



## Frank (Aug 30, 2011)

Hi allBeen doing Irene damage assesments and a common thread to the damage suffered here is large trees.  We have hundreds of tree hits with damages.  Very little wind damage other than a few shingles, flashing/coping, or localized siding.Is it time for a code change to restrict trees in excess of 12 inch caliper 5 ft off the ground to be no less than their height from the building?At least 3 fatalities in buildings in the state from tree hits.

View attachment 1588


View attachment 1589


View attachment 1588


View attachment 1589


/monthly_2011_08/572953e32b45f_treeinhousecomp.jpg.e75dec7511aab1a52be2e0b7ca1db7e1.jpg

/monthly_2011_08/572953e32ecdf_treeinporchc.jpg.277e0b98f2e25ed44f671f390130b48c.jpg


----------



## brudgers (Aug 30, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> Is it time for a code change to restrict trees in excess of 12 inch caliper 5 ft off the ground to be no less than their height from the building?


  Even if trees could read, I doubt they would pull permits.


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 30, 2011)

Or how about a code change banning wind storms!

Do you move the house or move the tree


----------



## brudgers (Aug 30, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Or how about a code change banning wind storms! Do you move the house or move the tree


   When it comes to ICC, either is easier than moving the mind.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 30, 2011)

Next thing the news will be telling us is that maple syrup will be higher this year, I hate that corn syrup crap!

Building Code change?

IZC code maybe, then you'll have to adopt it!

pc1


----------



## Msradell (Aug 30, 2011)

That would certainly be an interesting code to try to get passed!  It would certainly run counter to many existing regulations that require preservation of trees, especially in historic districts.  In this area some communities even require a permit to be pulled when removing a tree, even if it's diseased and even then they place requirements about planting replacements!

Of course I'm sure developers would love it because it could just clear-cut everything when starting a project!


----------



## righter101 (Aug 30, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> Hi allIs it time for a code change to restrict trees in excess of 12 inch caliper 5 ft off the ground to be no less than their height from the building?


Short answer is no.

Trees that are very close to a house will do less damage than those that are about 1/2 their height away.

This is way beyond the reach of the building code.  I am from the Oregon/Washington area.  We have trees in excess of 150 feet tall in residential areas.

What you are proposing would be close to absurd.  There are countless instances where trees are within striking distance of 2 lots away.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 30, 2011)

So much for braced walls!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 30, 2011)

> We have hundreds of tree hits with damages


Look on the positive side. People will rebuild which will stimulate your local economy. You always here about the fiscal loss due to a natural disaster but on the flip side there will be re-construction, products and materials purchased people working.


----------



## Frank (Aug 30, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Short answer is no.Trees that are very close to a house will do less damage than those that are about 1/2 their height away.
> 
> This is way beyond the reach of the building code.  I am from the Oregon/Washington area.  We have trees in excess of 150 feet tall in residential areas.
> 
> What you are proposing would be close to absurd.  There are countless instances where trees are within striking distance of 2 lots away.


Our experience has been with Isabel and Irene that if the top third of the uprooted tree hits the house the house can usually hold it with minimal damage, if the bottom third hits it then it acts like a pair of sissors and splits the house  the weight of the crown acting with a longer lever arm.  Broken off large limbs are more of a danger from trees close to house as well.  Many of the trees doing the damage are the neighbor's tree.

Precident for regulating vegetation around the house is in the IUWIC with defensible areas.

You could also use tree resistant construction techniques if had closer trees.

This modest proposal is more poking fun at the braced wall fiasco and pointing out that there are hazards that result in more damaged and destroyed buildings and deaths and injuries than some of the items we regulate beyond the point of diminishing returns.  Vehicle hits, land and air also result in more condemmend buildings than direct wind or fire but we dont regulate or defend against them.  It makes no sense to regulate clean wind or in costal zones wind with small missiles and ignore the elephant in the room of large trees--some of these oaks are over 60 inch caliper.


----------



## DRP (Aug 30, 2011)

You all do have a very good extension forester up there, might be worth getting him some damage pics for a public awareness message. We were looking at the massive red maple by the house here. It took a pretty good hit in Hugo and then the ice storm of '93. I had hoped it would outlive me but it's coming down this winter. The flip side is that every time I open up the woods the remaining trees are more apt to windthrow.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 30, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> Our experience has been with Isabel and Irene that if the top third of the uprooted tree hits the house the house can usually hold it with minimal damage, if the bottom third hits it then it acts like a pair of sissors and splits the house  the weight of the crown acting with a longer lever arm.  Broken off large limbs are more of a danger from trees close to house as well.  Many of the trees doing the damage are the neighbor's tree.  Precident for regulating vegetation around the house is in the IUWIC with defensible areas.  You could also use tree resistant construction techniques if had closer trees.  This modest proposal is more poking fun at the braced wall fiasco and pointing out that there are hazards that result in more damaged and destroyed buildings and deaths and injuries than some of the items we regulate beyond the point of diminishing returns.  Vehicle hits, land and air also result in more condemmend buildings than direct wind or fire but we dont regulate or defend against them.  It makes no sense to regulate clean wind or in costal zones wind with small missiles and ignore the elephant in the room of large trees--some of these oaks are over 60 inch caliper.


  Obviously, Andrew didn't hit Virginia.


----------



## KZQuixote (Aug 30, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> Hi allBeen doing Irene damage assesments and a common thread to the damage suffered here is large trees.  We have hundreds of tree hits with damages.  Very little wind damage other than a few shingles, flashing/coping, or localized siding.
> 
> Is it time for a code change to restrict trees in excess of 12 inch caliper 5 ft off the ground to be no less than their height from the building?
> 
> At least 3 fatalities in buildings in the state from tree hits.


Sorry Frank,

Folks build under trees cause they want to. Folks build and then plant tree cause they like shade. More rules ain't the solution. 'sides we need the remodel/repair business right now.

Bill


----------



## Frank (Aug 31, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Obviously, Andrew didn't hit Virginia.


We are over 100 miles inland so Andrew type winds are unlikely and not designed for here (90 mph wind zone)

Buildings in high wind coastal zones should be engineered.

The braced wall section language in the 2012 IRC has serious issues and needs yet another rework.

Note this is "a modest proposal" in the Swiftian sense.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> We are over 100 miles inland so Andrew type winds are unlikely and not designed for here (90 mph wind zone)  Buildings in high wind coastal zones should be engineered. The braced wall section language in the 2012 IRC has serious issues and needs yet another rework.  Note this is "a modest proposal" in the Swiftian sense.


   The IRC doesn't need another rework.    The Icodes need to be pitched.

    Your proposal is far too modest.


----------



## pwood (Aug 31, 2011)

bring back the 1997 ubc :mrgreen:


----------



## fatboy (Aug 31, 2011)

"bring back the 1997 ubc"

I wholeheartedly agree! :agree


----------



## peach (Aug 31, 2011)

around here, everyone loves street trees (and some of them are BIG old trees); they fall into houses, into the streets (tearing up sidewalks), hitting houses, cars, electrical lines.. some of the streets are still blocked today.

Can't always regulate stupid


----------



## KZQuixote (Aug 31, 2011)

"Can't always regulate stupid"

Hey Peach, Think about that comment for even a minute!

Trees and folks have been working it out for many millennia. Are you suggesting that code officials can solve the conflict that many generations of evolution weren't even concerned with??!??!

I'll wager that Robin of Loxley lost a few men to the trees they sheltered under without blaming Sherwood Forest.

Bill


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 31, 2011)

You have to have something for the illegals and the gypsy travelers to do...I say plant trees!


----------



## DRP (Sep 1, 2011)

Why leave it to others, over 500,000 so far.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Sep 1, 2011)

DRP said:
			
		

> . . . I had hoped it would outlive me but it's coming down this winter. The flip side is that every time I open up the woods the remaining trees are more apt to windthrow.


Good points; it takes years for healthy trees to develop the strength to withstand new exposure to elements; additionally many trees that cause damage are poorly maintained and are left standing well beyond their life expectancy.

Note “Tree selection and planting”; http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/430/430-029/430-029.html


----------



## Architect1281 (Sep 1, 2011)

AH HA my friends the ICC is ahead of us all

From a Wildland Urban Interface Code near you

Finding 4

The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create numerous serious difficulties regarding the control of and protection against fires in the  [JURISDICTION] . The hot, dry weather typical of this area in summer and fall, coupled with  [iDENTIFY ADDITIONAL CLIMATIC CONDITIONS]  frequently results in wildfires that threaten or could threaten the  [JURISDICTION]Wow.

Although some code requirements, such as fire-resistive roof classification, have a direct bearing on building survival in a wildland fire situation, others, such as residential automatic sprinklers, may also have a positive effect. In dry climate on low humidity days, many materials are much more easily ignited. More fires are likely to occur and any fire, once started, can expand extremely rapidly. Residential automatic sprinklers can arrest a fire starting within a structure before the fire is able to spread to adjacent brush and structures.

Seasonal winds also have the potential for interfering with emergency vehicle access, delaying or making impossible fire responses, because of toppling of extensive plantings of  [TYPE OF TREES]  trees. The trees are subject to uprooting in strong winds due to relatively small root bases compared to the tree itself.

The aforementioned problems support the imposition of fire-protection requirements greater than those set forth in the [iNTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OR INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE].

My Generator is Still Humming and will be throught the weekend

Powering down for now


----------



## Code Neophyte (Sep 1, 2011)

Ban all trees.  Someone like me - governmental employee making below the median income for the area - thinks it's cute to plant a cheap maple tree in the yard because it provides good shade.  But fast forward 20 years, and I'm still a stupid government schmuck and now the tree's 80 feet tall and has ruined my roof and my neighbor's roof, and I can't afford the $3,500 to have it cut down.  Wind storm hits and limbs fall through my roof and the neighbor's roof.  Really smart.  Bottom line:   Trees belong in the woods - not in a 10,000 s.f. yard.


----------



## KZQuixote (Sep 1, 2011)

"Ban all trees."

Get over yourself! Try some reality! If you are perceptive enough you'll find it's right there in front of you and is filled with uncertainty.

Bill


----------



## DRP (Sep 1, 2011)

Dessert tonight was peach sorbet, hard to beat. I doubt the trees are 20' tall and were loaded. The other end of the spectrum, I went home with our mason yesterday evening, we went down to the spring for a drink just before dark. A beautiful cathedral of tall poplars, for those out west they are the biggest remaining eastern trees now that the chestnuts are gone. Trees are a broad subject.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 2, 2011)

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Ban all trees.  Someone like me - governmental employee making below the median income for the area - thinks it's cute to plant a cheap maple tree in the yard because it provides good shade.  But fast forward 20 years, and I'm still a stupid government schmuck and now the tree's 80 feet tall and has ruined my roof and my neighbor's roof, and I can't afford the $3,500 to have it cut down.  Wind storm hits and limbs fall through my roof and the neighbor's roof.  Really smart.  Bottom line:   Trees belong in the woods - not in a 10,000 s.f. yard.


  If a tree falls on a "stupid government schmuck" and nobody cares, did it really happen?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 2, 2011)

"Ban all Trees."

"What about the leaves they leave behind!"

"It's like following your dog around with a bag!"

"Don't forget about the nuts they leave behind!

Brings out the bushy tailed varmits too!

Trees, you gotta love um!

pc1


----------



## fatboy (Sep 2, 2011)

"If a tree falls on a "stupid government schmuck" and nobody cares, did it really happen?"

Was that really necessary? Was it even close to OT? Did it add anything, other than your personal amusement? I know this topic has been all over, but really.....sometimes you are such an *** Try thinking for a few minutes before hitting the post button


----------



## Frank (Sep 2, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If a tree falls on a "stupid government schmuck" and nobody cares, did it really happen?


Falling trees typically kill one or two firefighters per year


----------



## brudgers (Sep 2, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "If a tree falls on a "stupid government schmuck" and nobody cares, did it really happen?"   Was that really necessary? Was it even close to OT? Did it add anything, other than your personal amusement? I know this topic has been all over, but really.....sometimes you are such an a$$ Try thinking for a few minutes before hitting the post button


  If the reference to "a modest proposal" by the OP goes whooshing over a board member's head, does that make their sanctimonious meta comments less irrelevant?


----------



## brudgers (Sep 2, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> Falling trees typically kill one or two firefighters per year


   Most firefighters are killed by heart attacks. Which brings to mind the irony that experts recommend you consult your doctor before exercising but not before going to the Endless Dinner Buffet at Golden Corral.


----------



## Frank (Sep 2, 2011)

The irony in that is if I have the big one at the building inspections office it is not work related, if I have it while watching tv at the firestation it is a line of duty death.  A couple years back a ff line of duty death included a guy that got run over by a semi as he crossed the road from the bar to the hotel while at a conference.  the latest NFPA list includes a self inflicted gunshot wound.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 3, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "If a tree falls on a "stupid government schmuck" and nobody cares, did it really happen?"Was that really necessary? Was it even close to OT? Did it add anything, other than your personal amusement? I know this topic has been all over, but really.....sometimes you are such an a$$ Try thinking for a few minutes before hitting the post button


In Brugers defense, he didn't label the poster as a "stupid government schmuck", he just expanded on a self assigned label by neophite.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 3, 2011)

"In Brugers defense, he didn't label the poster as a "stupid government schmuck", he just expanded on a self assigned label by neophite.

Don't defend him, he's an ####, we all know it, the reply was not needed. He could reply to any subject without all the insulting and derogitory comments liike most of us do, he chooses not not. I tire of his crap, and again am thinking that his knowledge of the code is not worth putting up with the baggage.


----------



## ICE (Sep 3, 2011)

In fatboy's defense, he neglected to read Neophite's post, before tall dogging brudgers.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 3, 2011)

I read neophites post...........the response was not needed.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Sep 3, 2011)

Back to the topic. My jurisdiction is right across the river from Frank's and we have suffered some major damage as well. It is staggering to see the number of HUGE trees that missed houses by inches. We have posted many houses as unsafe due to tree damage and we have millions of dollars in damage. Several houses have burned down when the power was turned back on. People left appliances on by mistake. I am also amazed at the hundreds of houses with large oaks on the roof that did little or no damage. Blind luck in most cases. Common sense tells you to keep the large trees away from the house but a code change is certainly not necessary.


----------



## BSSTG (Sep 3, 2011)

hogwash...... Like I said in another post, IRC will require sprinklers in dog houses the way their heading.

BS


----------



## ICE (Sep 3, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I read neophites post...........*the response was not needed.*


I haven't seen many that were....needed.  For myself, I am stupefied that anyone would find the post so offensive.  My sensibility must be hardened around the edges. That's not to say that I found no offense.  There was that feeling of ouch associated with a tree falling on a person, but then I have experience with chain saws.

The more obvious offense is "and nobody cares".  About the worst you can call that, is crass.  To jump down six notches and call him an "A$$, and we all know it".... to tell us that you are tired of his crap and wondering if he's worth the trouble just doesn't do the collective reality justice.

A few of you here that are vociferous about a brudgers faux pas stain the fabric of the forum and one gets the feeling you are looking up, not down.

Tiger


----------



## fatboy (Sep 3, 2011)

And I am unofficially withdrawing my comments...........I would delete them, but that would detract from the thread. My apologies for my personal reaction to the posts.


----------



## ICE (Sep 3, 2011)

Fatboy,

All indications are that you are a man worth knowing.

Tiger


----------



## Code Neophyte (Sep 5, 2011)

I'm not offended by Brudger's reply - it's exactly what I would have anticipated from him.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I get that attitude daily from the public, despite my best efforts to project a non-bureaucratic attitude.  There's a certain resentment regarding governmental employees, and that will always be the case.

I'll be the first to say that my reply to this thread was a bit "knee jerk" in nature, but I'll explain why in the next paragraph.  But while we're reacting to the tone of replies:  I'm more troubled by KZQuixote/Bill's reply, telling me to "get over" myself, and to "try reality".  That seemed a bit over the top and unprovoked, in my view.  But, if the participants of this forum begin to concur with Bill's opinion of my contributions, I can easily stop participating or even checking in.

Now, Bill - and others - here's why I said what I said.  Our community was struck with a windstorm in late June, which packed 80+mph winds and downed hundreds - if not thousands - of trees.  A state of emergency was declared, and I spent several weeks doing damage assessments and supervising clean up.  Fortunately, no lives were lost, but our town was a designated "Tree City USA", and it always seemed very imprudent to me to have 150-year-old hardwood trees, reaching dozens of feet into the air and measuring 6-feet-plus in diameter, to be planted within 8 or 10 feet of a house framed of lightweight construction.  This storm proved me correct, in literally decimating dozens of homes in the community.  And this was not even a tornado.

I stand by my apparently divisive and controversial earlier post, and say that trees should not be planted within their "fall zone" away from any structure within a town or city.  Aside from the storm this Summer, which did untold hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars worth of damage, I also deal with property maintenance/code enforcement.  There isn't a day that goes by that a citizen doesn't call to complain about a neighbor's tree that has limbs hanging over their property and are calling to ask me what we are going to do about it.

I love trees and shade as much as the next guy, but they have their place - and it's not in a 80X100 lawn.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 5, 2011)

When trees are outlawed, only outlaws will have trees.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 5, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "In Brugers defense, he didn't label the poster as a "stupid government schmuck", he just expanded on a self assigned label by neophite.   Don't defend him, he's an a$$, we all know it, the reply was not needed. He could reply to any subject without all the insulting and derogitory comments liike most of us do, he chooses not not. I tire of his crap, and again am thinking that his knowledge of the code is not worth putting up with the baggage.


   If a poster misses a reference to Hume's idealism in a comment regarding a Swiftian proposal, does that mean he is out of his league?


----------



## ICE (Sep 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If a poster misses a reference to Hume's idealism in a comment regarding a Swiftian proposal, does that mean he is out of his league?


Well doggone, if that ain't puttin' lipstick on a pig, I reckon I don't know pigs like I thunk.

And splain this will ya, if I don't git it, I cain't go bowling on Saturday night no more?  Is that what I'm a hear'n? 'Cause hey, me'n my buds are gittin a trophy this year *and* a free trip to Dollywood.  Cain't git 'nough a Dolly and the twins. :devil

OK, here goes nothin.  Let's see iffin I git it.  Yessiree! Shirley this is my final answer:

The scatological Hume could have qualified to be a patient at St. Patrick’s Hospital for Imbeciles.

Maybe I ain't ready for Jeopardy but Hot Dang! I'm still in the league.  I better quit savin beer tokens though, 'cause, well, ya never know when.... At least I hope it don't happen 'til I git new balls.  The old ones don't seem to be a hangin right.  What with me be'n a lefty and all, that's a big deal.

Speaking of balls..... here's a different set.  http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5604-Unusual-things-I-ve-noticed-about-the-IRC

Tiger


----------



## brudgers (Sep 6, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well doggone, if that ain't puttin' lipstick on a pig, I reckon I don't know pigs like I thunk I did.    And splain this will ya, if I don't git it, I cain't go bowling on Saturday night no more?  Is that what I'm a hear'n? 'Cause hey, me'n my buds are gittin a trophy this year *and* a free trip to Dollywood.  Cain't git 'nough a Dolly and the twins. :devil  OK, here goes nothin.  Let's see iffin I git it.  Yessiree! Shirley this is my final answer:  The scatological Hume could have qualified to be a patient at St. Patrick’s Hospital for Imbeciles.     Maybe I ain't ready for Jeopardy but Hot Dang! I'm still in the league.  I better quit savin beer tokens though, 'cause, well, ya never know when.... At least I hope it don't happen 'til I git new balls.  The old ones don't seem to be a hangin right.  What with me be'n a lefty and all, that's a big deal.  Speaking of balls..... here's a different set.  http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5604-Unusual-things-I-ve-noticed-about-the-IRC  Tiger


  Bowling on Saturday night? When you go mudboggin?


----------



## ICE (Sep 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Bowling on Saturday night? When you go mudboggin?


Never!  You've seen my truck.

Thanks for not sending me back to Wikipedia.


----------

