whose tree is it? (Austin, West: house, maintenance, taxes)

[orngkat]

We have a very large dying cottonwood that sits within the city easement by the front curb. I have called 311 to see if someone from the city can at least remove the dying branches that go over the street - no one ever came out though they said they would. Any thoughts on who a tree in the easement belongs to - the homeowner or the city?

[10scoachrick]

I believe it is up to the homeowner to maintain the tree. Seems I read of a 14' height clearance requirement at the curb and I'm pretty sure the homeowners in our area are the ones footing the bill for maintenance. If you're speaking of the typical ROW set-back that usually includes the sidewalk and the area from the street to the first cut in the driveway as the location of the tree, I think it's yours. If there is a separate 'island' or similar situation, maybe the city is on the hook.

Good luck!

[FalconheadWest]

You don't own the property if it's between the sidewalk and the street, but you have agreed to maintain the area. You can call 311 again to see if they'll do something, or ask for someone higher up, otherwise, you'll need to remove it at your expense.

[FinalF137]

Be care, since you say it’s on the city easement it might be classified as a tree on public property. When those are removed, it’s usually required that a tree or trees equaling the diameter of the tree you just took down be planted (can be planted somewhere else). i.e. You take a 20’ diameter tree down, you have to plant 4 5’ inch diameter trees or 2 10’ diameter trees, etc….
Try calling the Planning and Development Review Department; they seem to be the ones in charge of trees in Austin. They have a video talking about Tree review process on their homepage.

[dmorey]

Probably the homeowner unfortunately. I had someone out to look at a tree behind my house a couple of weeks ago. We don't have a backyard, just an elevated patio over the greenbelt. There is a tree next to the water that is dead with the branches over the house, and it would fall on my house if it goes. It's already dropping large branches when it rains. The city came after I called 3-1-1 (took a few days). They said the tree is the responsibility of the homeowner even though it's basically in the greenbelt, which the city is responsible for. They said they would only deal with it if it fell and blocked water, creating a danger of flooding.

[orngkat]

I am worried about liability if one of the large branches falls on someone...wondering who would be held responsible in that instance?

[Trainwreck20]

I am worried about liability if one of the large branches falls on someone...wondering who would be held responsible in that instance?

Quite possibly you. Many years ago, there was a story from somewhere up north, where an icy sidewalk caused someone to fall, and the homeowner was held responsible. A similar case I vaguely remember seemed to also relate to an uneven sidewalk contributing to an injury, and the homeowner being found liable.

In short, I think (emphasis on 'think') that the homeowner is responsible for the ROW.

[ITO]

Originally Posted by FalconheadWest

You don't own the property if it's between the sidewalk and the street, but you have agreed to maintain the area. You can call 311 again to see if they'll do something, or ask for someone higher up, otherwise, you'll need to remove it at your expense.

Are you sure? Just because there is an easement, does not mean it is not yours. Granted you do not enjoy exclusive use of it, but if you check your plat map and deed, it pretty clearly show it as yours, and you are paying taxes on it.