According to the lawsuit<\/a>, Petrick bought his house in August 2025 in preparation for the birth of his first child. After noticing a tree with a split trunk that he believed posed a falling hazard and two overgrown trees, he hired a tree-trimming company to remove the split trunk tree and trim the other two.\u00a0<\/p>\n The city determined the split trunk tree was too small to trigger mitigation but concluded the other two trees had been over-pruned and treated them as if they had been removed.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cTrimming the trees did not harm anyone,\u201d the lawsuit reads. \u201cTo the contrary, the trimming reduced risks to both neighbors and power lines. Nor did the trimming meaningfully harm the trees. They remain standing with leafy green canopies to this day.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Under chapter 25-8 of Austin Land Development Code<\/a> and the Environmental Criteria Manual<\/a>, Petrick must either plant 44 caliper-inches of replacement trees on his 0.28-acre lot\u2014roughly equivalent to 15 trees each measuring 13-15 feet tall\u2014or pay $8,800 in mitigation fees.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is exactly the sort of thing that makes housing too expensive in Austin,\u201d said TPPF Director of Litigation Chance Weldon. \u201cIt shouldn\u2019t cost you thousands of dollars every time you engage in harmless yard maintenance.\u201d<\/p>\n Petrick is claiming the city ordinance is an unconstitutional infringement on his private property rights and is in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Petrick\u2014not the City\u2014owns the trees in his yard,\u201d the lawsuit states.<\/p>\n The lawsuit further argues the ordinance imposes blanket requirements rather than conducting an individualized assessment of harm, rendering it \u201cunconstitutional on its face.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Mary-150x150.jpg\")
<\/p>\n