WWTBAM Bored

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflif ... html?imw=Y

SUNNYVALE, California (AP) -- In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for eco-friendly California, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels.

And the judge ruled for the plaintiff!

After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

But these were (relatively) recently planted trees that have grown in the past several years, not quite the "towering redwoods" I imagined.

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

Whew! California law isn't entirely bonkers, then.

MarleysGh0st wrote:And the judge ruled for the plaintiff!

After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

But these were (relatively) recently planted trees that have grown in the past several years, not quite the "towering redwoods" I imagined.

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

Whew! California law isn't entirely bonkers, then.

Not so sure. Does this mean that existing trees that were short when the panels are put in, but which grow to be tall enough to cause shade later on, have to be cut or trimmed?

gsabc wrote:Does this mean that existing trees that were short when the panels are put in, but which grow to be tall enough to cause shade later on, have to be cut or trimmed?

That's how I interpret this. I'm not sure why the judge ordered those two trees cut down instead of just trimmed.

Another issue, to me, is where the solar panels are built. From the picture in the article, it looks like this guy has them right next to the property line.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

gsabc wrote:Does this mean that existing trees that were short when the panels are put in, but which grow to be tall enough to cause shade later on, have to be cut or trimmed?

That's how I interpret this. I'm not sure why the judge ordered those two trees cut down instead of just trimmed.

Another issue, to me, is where the solar panels are built. From the picture in the article, it looks like this guy has them right next to the property line.

In that case IMO, the law IS bonkers. Trees grow. If you're stupid enough to put your panels where you can darn well figure out they'll be shaded when the trees do their thing over the next 20 or so years, it should be your problem, not the trees'. Move 'em somewhere else.

Can't agree with gs, I'm afraid, at least without more specifics.

I"m betting the panels were in place before the trees, so it seems the tree-growers have an obligation there.

If these trees are big enough, and the houses close enough, that they block significant sunlight between 10AM and 2 PM, something's wrong.

If these trees had branches that overhang your property, and a branch fell off and crushed a fence, or a car, would the fence-owners, or the car-owners be at fault for building or parking in the way of the trees?

The biggest thing is, this should not have to have been decided by the court system. But jerky neighbors exist everywhere, I guess.

If these trees had branches that overhang your property, and a branch fell off and crushed a fence, or a car, would the fence-owners, or the car-owners be at fault for building or parking in the way of the trees?


Given the recent Oklahoma ice storm, and ensuing insurance claims -- if a tree falls off your neighbor's tree and damages your property, YOUR insurance company pays to fix/repair your property. This assumes that the tree in question was healthy, and makes no provision for which was built or planted first.

mrkelley23 wrote:Can't agree with gs, I'm afraid, at least without more specifics.

I"m betting the panels were in place before the trees, so it seems the tree-growers have an obligation there.

If these trees are big enough, and the houses close enough, that they block significant sunlight between 10AM and 2 PM, something's wrong.

If these trees had branches that overhang your property, and a branch fell off and crushed a fence, or a car, would the fence-owners, or the car-owners be at fault for building or parking in the way of the trees?

The biggest thing is, this should not have to have been decided by the court system. But jerky neighbors exist everywhere, I guess.

If the panel installation predates the planting of the trees, I agree. But what if there are existing trees that don't shade the area where panels are installed, which then grow to shade the panels?

While you may be responsible for damage caused by a tree growing in your yard, in MA at least, the neighbor whose house or driveway is being overhung has the right to trim the part of the tree that's causing the potential problem.

This is a great issue to start discussing, because there are going to be lots more like this. Alternative forms of energy are going to be forced on us, like it or not.

Energy rights could become the new water rights.

If I build a windmill somewhere, and then someone builds something that blocks the prevailing winds, do I have the ability to get relief?

It's interesting, to say the least.

Energy rights could become the new water rights.

I see where T Boone Pickens has purchased 200,000 acres of water rights in Texas. It's the latest rage...

OK, I take it back and apologize -- I didn't read the article carefully before. It does say the tree planting predates the solar panels.

It also looks like the houses are mighty close together. I know there's a right side and a wrong side of the house to put panels on, as well as trees. I would assume they'd be the same, but apparently not.

mrkelley23 wrote:If I build a windmill somewhere, and then someone builds something that blocks the prevailing winds, do I have the ability to get relief?

Hasn't a version of this already been happening? IIRC, there have been suits by people who bought their houses for the nice view, and then other developers built more houses right in front of the view (so THEIR buyers could have the view).

You are likely correct about the energy wars, though. As more and more individuals go the route of renewable energy, access to the ultimate source of that energy will become more and more important.