Can They Make Me Cut Down This Tree?

I live in a development outside of Seattle with wonderful views. We have covenants here which say: "No trees of any type, other than those existing at the time these restrictive covenants are filed, shall be allowed to grow more than twenty (20) feet in height, provided they do not unnecessarily interfere with the view of another residence." The covenants were filed in 1960. I have a 94 foot tall fir tree which has been shown to be 109 years old (i.e. 63 years in 1960). After a neighbor 500 feet behind us complained, the covenants review committee has ruled that this tree does not satisfy the definition of an existing tree at the time the covenants were filed because it was not "full grown" in 1960. They base this on a sworn statement from one of the men who developed the area and was party to writing the covenants. He has said that the intent of the covenants was to protect "full grown" trees. Since a Douglas Fir tree keeps growing for sometimes 200 years, their conclusion is that I must remove it. This seems absurd, but there is precident that when covenants are ambiguous, any known intent of the authors is weighed heavily by the court. We have lived here 23 years with no complaints, the new neighbor has been here less than a year (not that the law cares, but it sure is a bad deal.) So - opinions - could I win this one in court, or should I roll over? It would really set a bad precident for the rest of the neighborhood.

Thanks - Larry M.

I agree with you that they are absurd. Defining a tree as “full grown” is crazy… what would it be the next year, dead? How tall was your tree in 1960?

I would fight the covenants review committee. I’d get an attorney sought out and see what he/she thinks you should do next.