CC&R Language clarification

[mastgaramchai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WA

Our community has CC&R originally written in 1963 and since then amended twice. Need clarification on the below.

Original Word:
No tree, shrub or planting of any type, other than that existing at the time this instrument was filed, shall be allowed to grown more than fifteen feet in height.

Amended:
No Tree, shrub, or plant of any type other than old growth Douglas Fir and Cedar Trees that existed prior to June 10, 1963, Shall be permitted to grow higher than Fifteen (15) Feet From it’s Base.

Need clarification needed as to what does Old growth refer to in amendment?

Thanks in advance for your time and input.

 

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WA

Our community has CC&R originally written in 1963 and since then amended twice. Need clarification on the below.

Original Word:
No tree, shrub or planting of any type, other than that existing at the time this instrument was filed, shall be allowed to grown more than fifteen feet in height.

Amended:
No Tree, shrub, or plant of any type other than old growth Douglas Fir and Cedar Trees that existed prior to June 10, 1963, Shall be permitted to grow higher than Fifteen (15) Feet From it’s Base.

Need clarification needed as to what does Old growth refer to in amendment?

Thanks in advance for your time and input.

This is not a legal question, but a botanical one.

If the Douglas Fir/Cedar were planted before 1963, then they can be allowed to grow unfettered. Otherwise, they can only be 15 ft tall at most.

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/ForestResearch/Pages/lm_oldgrowth_guides.aspx

 

[FarmerJ]

I see the original as any kind of tree shrub etc so I had oak and elm and maple and apple trees up at the time this was originally wrote out any thing new not already growing as of 6/63 must be trimmed or kept to no more than 15 feet , but this new wording to me is pointless because if I already had apple and elm and oak and maple and other trees on my property and had this rule tied to my title I would argue hard and heavy you cannot change the wording of a old but defined rule but instead must write a whole new rule that addresses this from todays date forward and the old one I would likely threaten to sue to keep all my pre june of 63 growth and I dont think I would back down since mature trees of any kind seem to add alot of value to property.

 

[justalayman]

This is not a legal question, but a botanical one.

If the Douglas Fir/Cedar were planted before 1963, then they can be allowed to grow unfettered. Otherwise, they can only be 15 ft tall at most.

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/ForestResearch/Pages/lm_oldgrowth_guides.aspx

The problem with that interpretation is, as farmers spoke to, it is an attempt to retroactively enforce the rule on all flora other than the cedar and Douglas fir trees specified. That means if I have some oak, maple, or any other tree, regardless of whether it was in place before the specified date, must be trimmed or cut to comply with the rule. I suspect an ex post facto rule is going to be as hard to enforce as an ex post facto law is.

 

[TheGeekess]

IF OP left out a comma between 'old growth' and 'cedar', that would change the meaning of the sentence. But unless OP wants to come back and clarify, then it is what it is.