City orders tree removal, how to appeal?

[lilac]

I received in the mail an order by the city to remove 2 silver maples from the public right of way in front of my house. I haven't called the city forester for the details yet. The notice says "2 silver maples:'Remove the entire dead, dying, dangerous or damaged trees' "

Under that "silver maple tree with squirrel hole along 39th ave. 'I'll have to inspect this tree with an aerial lift'."

I can appeal the order within 2 weeks. Apparently the appeal can be a list of reasons I feel the trees should not be removed. After that I'll have time to get experts etc. to give an opinion on the state of the trees.

Does anyone have any experience or advice with this process? I can't find any examples online. Who would I need to get to evaluate the trees? Is there anyone who can fight with the city for me?

ETA: I just paid $500 to have the first 2 trees trimmed about a month ago. I believe a neighbor called the city asking for a inspection. Downright nasty if you ask me knowing I just had them trimmed.

 

[Streyken]

Most municipalities don't like spending more money than they have to; if they're removing the trees it's probably for a reason. What shape are they in, how big are the trees or component parts, what is/are the target(s), traffic and usage density, etc. If the tree or component part did fail what is the likely outcome?

They probably won't listen to a homeowner's list of reasons, you would have to get an arborist to give you a written report stating reasons that out weigh the risks the city already perceives and the arborist would have to say the risk these trees present is acceptable because....

If the trees are dead/dying unfortunately you probably have no hope of saving the trees and should not spend the money on a report, once on record the municipality will not want to assume liability and they are just doing their due diligence.

Trees are an emotional subject, but the risks must be weighed objectively - if they were your trees, would you accept the risk if it were present to a greater than average degree?

You can always call an arborist and get an informal verbal report, it will cost less and you could then proceed based on his/her view of the situation.

 

[lilac]

Most municipalities don't like spending more money than they have to; if they're removing the trees it's probably for a reason. What shape are they in, how big are the trees or component parts, what is/are the target(s), traffic and usage density, etc. If the tree or component part did fail what is the likely outcome?

I'd be the one spending the money to remove the trees and if the trees were to fall, I'd be resposible for that too.

They probably won't listen to a homeowner's list of reasons, you would have to get an arborist to give you a written report stating reasons that out weigh the risks the city already perceives and the arborist would have to say the risk these trees present is acceptable because....

If the trees are dead/dying unfortunately you probably have no hope of saving the trees and should not spend the money on a report, once on record the municipality will not want to assume liability and they are just doing their due diligence.

The liability is all mine, not theirs.


Trees are an emotional subject, but the risks must be weighed objectively - if they were your trees, would you accept the risk if it were present to a greater than average degree?

They ARE my trees and the only risk I can see IF they were to fall would be to my house, no one else's. How often do you hear of a tree just falling over?

You can always call an arborist and get an informal verbal report, it will cost less and you could then proceed based on his/her view of the situation.

This should probably be my next move.

 

[Streyken]

Sorry for the confusion, the term "public right of way" often refers to municipal land, at least here. Call an arborist and see if he can make a legitimate case for you.

 

[Streyken]

Ahh, now this makes sense. In Denver "Adjacent property owners are required to maintain trees in the public ROW abutting their property." This is done here with hedges, but not trees. The trees are owned by the city, but as a property owner you must maintain them. Here, if you don't follow their order they'll hire a contractor to do the work and bill you. This is just part of owning property in certain areas. If failure did occur the city would be liable to at least some extent, it's on their property.

 

[treeseer]

http://www.asca-consultants.org/directory/index.cfm?fuseaction=searchResults

the good news is, there are a lot of ASCA members in your area. the bad news is, many of them charge a lot. But it doesn't hurt to ask. You may also be well served by finding an arborist here:
http://www.treesaregood.com/FindTreeServices/FindTreeCareService.aspx

If they are freaking out about a squirrel hole that they have not even examined yet, you have a case. Post pictures of your trees here for more info.

 

[NYCHA FORESTER]

I received in the mail an order by the city to remove 2 silver maples from the public right of way in front of my house.


Does anyone have any experience or advice with this process? I can't find any examples online. Who would I need to get to evaluate the trees? Is there anyone who can fight with the city for me?

ETA: I just paid $500 to have the first 2 trees trimmed about a month ago. I believe a neighbor called the city asking for a inspection. Downright nasty if you ask me knowing I just had them trimmed.

I'm a little confused....... If the tree is in the citys ROW then they should remove it.

Call up your tree "Trimmers" as ask them why thet trimmed trees that should, according to Denver Public Works, should be removed.

 

[OTG BOSTON]

I'm a little confused....... If the tree is in the citys ROW then they should remove it.

I agree. That is how it works in Mass, and the rest of New England.

Have you tried to get in touch with the guy who did the evaluation? Sometimes a just a phone call is enough for me to hold off on a tree removal for a few years. (of course in my case it is the city's liability we're talking about) Usually the tree will continue to decline and eventually the concerned homeowner will call me and say something like, "I think it's time for "us" to remove the tree". Remember if the representitive from the town is an Arborist he actually LIKES trees, he'll probably work with you if you play nice!

 

[antigrassguy]

The best tool for this job is a registered consulting arborist that is a ASCA member. If it is your desire keep the trees alive you will need a written report stating the condition of the trees that includes the amount of decay and the overall health amongst other things. The key here is a written report by a creditable source.
I definitely agree with NYCHA in contacting the company that trimmed your trees and see what they have to say. They have seen the trees from a different angle, looking down, and may be able to help a little.
Every city/town has a different set of rules concerning ROW trees. Some put the onus on the homeowner while others will take care of the trees themselves. Much the same with power companies. One of our local communities has their own power company and if the home owner wants a tree pruned/removed that is not in the current cycle, 3-4 years, they recommend that the homeowner hire a company that has line clearance credentials. Service drops, single phase or 3 phase doesnt matter.
In the long run how much do you like these trees and how much you are willing to fight for them can only be determined after a reliable registered and certified consulting arborist inspects the over all condition and gives you a written report. Then based on this report you can decide how to proceed.
Please keep us updated and photos would be nice. Good luck and have a great day.

 

[antigrassguy]

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_5603974
This is recent and coming before the city councel on the April 16th for its first reading. You may want to attend and then you will at least know who the city forester is.

 

[Streyken]

All trees with a target have risk; a hazard is an event or process with the potential to cause harm because of a clearly defined defect and usually requires immediate action. Risk and hazard/dangerous are very different things. If a hazard has been identified by the city, and the tree is on a PROW, I don't understand how they can make you pay for this. It is not part of regular maintenance, as the action will only happen once. And if immediate action is required they should be responsible, if not, your tree bylaws leave time where the city is putting itself at risk of litigation for delaying. If the trees are not a hazard, as has been mentioned, contacting an ASCA member with the designation of RCA is a good idea and your best shot.

 

[antigrassguy]

WOW. Denver has a aggressive pro tree ordinance coming up for review. In the link they offer a spot to send comments.. so I did and you can too.
http://www.denvergov.org/Forestry/HomePage/tabid/387519/Default.aspx


This is a link to the Denver Forestry homepage and it seems pretty good. Lots of info can be found here.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

I agree. That is how it works in Mass, and the rest of New England.

Laws, rules, & regulations differ widely from place to place. First home I owned, my property extended out to the midline of the street. My deed described it, I paid property tax on it, but I had no more rights from the sidewalk out to the street centerline than did anybody else.

However, I DID have responsibility for the trees on the strip between the sidewalk and street. I had to water & trim them, as needed, or I could be cited. I could NOT remove them without city permission.

But the city could do as they pleased with them, with or without notice.

So be careful about proclaiming what the law is based on what you know where you are. You might be dead on right - for your neighborhood. Doesn't mean anything halfway across the country.

 

[treeseer]

an ASCA member with the designation of RCA is a good idea and your best shot.

That is one source, but an arborist with a BCMA has proven competence at consulting. RCA covers more report-writing skills and less arboricultural understanding. I only posted the ASCA link because I know there are a lot of members in and around Denver who are also qualified arborists.

Otherwise good advice so far. Squirrel hole, yeah, that's a yellow flag maybe an orange flag but not a red flag. If you would like to post the city's reasons for removal we'd be glad to see them. A picture could also help build your case.

 

[Dixie1]

from what i understand, right-of-way just means that the city has the right to use that portion of property if needed, for street expansion or adding utilities. That doesn't mean the city owns that property. It is just a right of usage if necessary. In our town it is your responsibility to maintain the trees on your property even if they are located in a right-of-way. However, I'm aware of cities where there are restrictions as to what homeowners can do to the trees in the right-of-ways, like no topping or removals must be approved by city forester. i would like to see pictures of your trees to see what the problem is. But like someone said, if they have a pro-tree ordinance, there is probably a good reason, safety issue, why the city wants the trees removed. good luck.

 

[Streyken]

Dixie1, you're right and I have seen this type of arrangement, but with the word public it means anyone has access to this piece of land to use as a throughway.

http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/490/documents/Forestry%20Entrance%20Requirements%20v2.pdf

Purpose of Authority:
To establish requirements (1) for planting and maintaining trees, shrubs, or
other plants on any public right-of-way or other public place in the city; and
(2) to establish rules & regulations garnering licensing, fees, and conduct of
the business licensed.
Purpose of Agencies: The Forestry Division is responsible for maintaining parks, parkways, and
public office building trees, managing the city nursery, planting trees, and
overseeing maintenance of trees along the public right-of-way (ROW) (which
are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner), and helping citizens
with arboricultural-related issues. Denver Forestry is administered by the
Parks Division of the Parks & Recreation Department.

 

[antigrassguy]

Streyken was correct in the first reply (I didnt read it all the way thru) in that you could contact an arborist for a verbal assessment first to determine if you want to persue the issue. Than, if it would be saveable, a written report from a ASCA member.

 

[lilac]

Thanks for all of the great responses! A friend of my mother's was telling her that she had a similar situation. Had just had her tree trimmed by one of the licensed tree contractors who's name is listed on the Denvergov.org website. WHen she got the notice telling her to have the tree removed, she called the forestry office but spoke with a different inspector rather than the one whose name was on her notice. He came out and looked at the tree and said there was no reason why it should be removed. He reversed the other guy's decision and the tree is still standing. Think I'll try this before I get an arborist out.

Here's another question. I used a tree contractor from the city website's list of licensed contractors to trim these 2 trees a month ago. If the trees were in bad enough shape to warrant removal, shouldn't he have known this and said something about it to me before trimming the trees and collecting his $500?

I should also mention I called the tree trimmer and left a message explaining the situation and asking if he could advise me in how to fight this, I did not accuse him of anything, merely asked for advice as I would think he's come across this type of thing before. He has not returned my call. Kinda fishy I think.

 

[OTG BOSTON]

So be careful about proclaiming what the law is based on what you know where you are. You might be dead on right - for your neighborhood. Doesn't mean anything halfway across the country.

That statement was prefaced by NYCHA's "I am a little confused" and I was in agreement with that sentiment. I further stated why, it was not intended to be advice. The advice was the rest of my post based on my five years of experience as a municipal arborist. As far as I can tell I am the only Muni. who replied to this thread and am offering a viewpoint from the "other side"

Is that really the best contribution you can make to this thread??:notrolls2:

 

[PWB]

Another municipal employee here, but in a different area/country. Up here (in most cases) the road allowance is 66 feet. If the tree (or at least 10% of it) is on the road allowance we are responsible, end of story. Like the other guy said though, it depends on the local laws............