City orders tree removal, how to appeal?

[treeseer]

He has not returned my call. Kinda fishy I think.

Try calling him again, and again. Remind him that word of mouth advertisisng can be good or bad. If he charged you $500 to prune 2 trees he can take a minute to talk to you about them. You may be able to buy an hour of his time to write out a report on the tree's condition.

If he's experienced, his opinion counts. The only thing ASCA membership shows is some education and experience, and the willingness to invest $365/year just to have that membership. They do not provide haloes in the membership packet.:monkey:

 

[lilac]

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............

That seems like a sensible law to me. Unfortunately that's not the way it is here. I own the land, but the city has rights to the ROW. I'm responsible for the maintenance of that area whether it be trees, shrubs, mulch, whatever, but if the city wants to tear it all out, they can do that.

Seems to me if I'm responsible for maintenance of the tree, it's my tree and it's up to me what I do with it.

The thing is, there are no other houses that would be harmed IF the trees were to fall down, just mine. Anything that happens would be my responsibility anyway, so why do they think they can tell me to take MY trees down? It would even make more sense to me if they wanted to use the ROW for a purpose and the trees needed to go. What business is it of theirs if my trees are dead?(IMO they're not) IfF ther trees were diseased, that makes sense. Don't want all of the neighborhood trees catching that and dying.

As far as I know dead trees don't grow leaves.

 

[DonnyO]

They do not provide haloes in the membership packet.:monkey:

How'd you get yours??

 

[lilac]

Well, I called my tree trimmer again, have yet to receive a call back. CAlled the citry forester's office, spoke to an inspector(not the one whos ent me the notice), told him I wanted a second opinion. He told me they don't reverse each other's opinions. Not true as I know someone who had exactly that happen.

So anyway I told him I'd had the tree trimmed recently, he checked and saw there had not been a permit pulled. This isn't something I'd even thought of. Not sure if this will be an issue for me but if it is, it'll just be one more problem to add to the entire crisis I guess.

He could see the other inspector had made lots of notes but said I'd have to call and speak with that guy.

The whole point is if someone hadn't stuck their nose in where it doesn't belong and called for an inspection, the trees would have continued to stand where they are for years to come. I want to know who that person is.

 

[treeseer]

He told me they don't reverse each other's opinions. Not true as I know someone who had exactly that happen.

But it's not policy so they do not advertise that fact.

he checked and saw there had not been a permit pulled.

This is a nonissue; getting permits is a rarity in many cities.

He could see the other inspector had made lots of notes but said I'd have to call and speak with that guy.

Sounds like a plan. Find out about that squirrel hole--maybe your trimmer guy will testify that there was no sign of a big cavity up there. O and it's no use wondering who called for the inspection--the thing now is to getyour trimmer's inspection documented. HInt: you already paid them for it!umpkin2: After all, if they saw big problems with the tree they would probably have tried to sell you on a removal, right?

"How'd you get yours??"

Nice comeback, DonnyO! It was either in a box of Crackerjack, or at a yard sale.:biggrinbounce2:

 

[lilac]

But it's not policy so they do not advertise that fact.This is a nonissue; getting permits is a rarity in many cities.Sounds like a plan. Find out about that squirrel hole--maybe your trimmer guy will testify that there was no sign of a big cavity up there. O and it's no use wondering who called for the inspection--the thing now is to getyour trimmer's inspection documented. HInt: you already paid them for it!umpkin2: After all, if they saw big problems with the tree they would probably have tried to sell you on a removal, right?

"How'd you get yours??"

Nice comeback, DonnyO! It was either in a box of Crackerjack, or at a yard sale.:biggrinbounce2:

Actually the squirrel hole they mentioned is on one of the trees I didn't have trimmed. One of the ones I did have trimmed has a hole where pigeons were living. This one the trimmer guy actually told me was not very deep.

However this same tree has a big piece of bark ripped off, I assume by the "expert" city arborist. I'm assuming they'll try and tell me it's hollow.

The guy today said they wouldn't be telling me to cut it down if there wasn't some sort of "safety hazard". His whole plan was I should call the other guy so he can come and explain to me what the problem is. I'm not interested in what he has to say. In fact if I had a shotgun I'd tell him to come on over and end my problem right there.

 

[treeseer]

A this same tree has a big piece of bark ripped off, I assume by the "expert" city arborist. I'm assuming they'll try and tell me it's hollow.

If bark is coming off the trunk, you have a major issue. If you do not want to know about this issue, yand would rather talk about shotguns, you are not advocating for your tree.

If you want help, take off all the dead bark where the city guy started, then post a picture here.

 

[NYCHA FORESTER]

The only thing ASCA membership shows is some education and experience, and the willingness to invest $365/year just to have that membership. They do not provide haloes in the membership packet.:monkey:

 

[Dixie1]

if these were my trees, I would do some research and ask for the report from the city forester to see why he deemed your trees hazardous and need to be removed. especially, like you said they only problem they would cause it to fall on your house, wouldn't you want to know if you are threatened by a dangerous situation? i hate to cut down trees too, but if they are dangerous, there is no question. you can always replant. most city foresters, including myself, are definitely pro tree. I do understand your frustration with the whole right-of-way thing. it is confusing. i would think they would be willing, if asked nicely, to give you a copy of the report they wrote up. get a second opion from a certified arborist and see if they are on the same page. trees are important and you do want to make sure the right decision is being made about your trees. good luck and please let us know how this works out.

 

[lilac]

if these were my trees, I would do some research and ask for the report from the city forester to see why he deemed your trees hazardous and need to be removed. especially, like you said they only problem they would cause it to fall on your house, wouldn't you want to know if you are threatened by a dangerous situation? i hate to cut down trees too, but if they are dangerous, there is no question. you can always replant. most city foresters, including myself, are definitely pro tree. I do understand your frustration with the whole right-of-way thing. it is confusing. i would think they would be willing, if asked nicely, to give you a copy of the report they wrote up. get a second opion from a certified arborist and see if they are on the same page. trees are important and you do want to make sure the right decision is being made about your trees. good luck and please let us know how this works out.

The major problem I have with this is number one, they're my trees. Number two, the trees are probably close to 100 hundred years old. I can plant new trees but I won't live long enough to see them reach a comparable size as in Colorado, they grow very slowly. Number three, I didn't ask anyone to analyze my trees. Someone decided to take it upon themselves to ask for it. It's none of their business. If it's who I suspect it is, these trees are no danger to them or their property if they fall over right this minute.

As far as the trees being dangerous, I feel like that's my business. In this case I ought to be able to tell the city forester thanks for informing me, I will decide what to do in my own time. Being ordered to remove 2 or 3 trees within 45 days is unfair due to the fact it's very expensive. They shouldn't have the right to do that. Its' also expensive to buy new trees if you want something bigger than a small stick.

Bottom line is they're my trees, my responsibility, if anything happens I'll be paying for the damage, not the city, so why is it any of their business?

I know it's pointless to argue this because it's the law, but I just feel attacked. For the city to say they're protecting me by forcing me to cut down trees, thanks but no thanks. The other thing is if they were to inspect every tree in this area, I'm guessing nearly half the trees would have to come down according to their rules. This is an old area, we have old trees, that's the way it is.

 

[DonnyO]

Lilac

There must be some reason the city wants the trees down. Is there any chance of these trees blocking the road or falling on powerlines if they fail?

 

[lilac]

There must be some reason the city wants the trees down. Is there any chance of these trees blocking the road or falling on powerlines if they fail?

They might fall across the road but so what? It's not like I'm living on a highway. You call someone to clean them up, problem solved. Until they're lying in the road, they're not bothering anybody. I really don't care why the city wants them down. If they want them down so bad then they should pay to get it done. Until they're willing to do that, they need to stay out of my business and my bank account.

 

[DonnyO]

O.K. I was just asking

Your overly offensive posture may hold you back in your plight to save these trees..........

 

[Dadatwins]

I own the land, but the city has rights to the ROW. I'm responsible for the maintenance of that area whether it be trees, shrubs, mulch, whatever, but if the city wants to tear it all out, they can do that.

I am confused by this statement, As I understand a ROW located on a property, the property owner may use the land but cannot erect any permanent structure in the ROW, and whoever has the ROW is responsibile for the maintainence of it. You state that you own the land but the city can clear it at will. Yet as I understand the city wants you to pay for the removal of the trees. Also confusing is why would the city require a permit to work on trees that are on private property? Most require a permit to work on city owned trees but private work only requires a business license.

As far as I know dead trees don't grow leaves.

Trees can have leaves but still be hazardous. You can't base the overall health of a tree as OK based on the tree having leaves. That would be a mistake.

 

[lilac]

Your overly offensive posture may hold you back in your plight to save these trees..........

So I should be sweet and understanding and everything will work out alright? I seriously doubt that.

 

[Streyken]

So I should be sweet and understanding and everything will work out alright? I seriously doubt that.

People here are only trying to help. First, drop the 'tude and get the real facts, then post. You're only seeing the issue from one side.

 

[lilac]

I am confused by this statement, As I understand a ROW located on a property, the property owner may use the land but cannot erect any permanent structure in the ROW, and whoever has the ROW is responsibile for the maintainence of it. You state that you own the land but the city can clear it at will. Yet as I understand the city wants you to pay for the removal of the trees. Also confusing is why would the city require a permit to work on trees that are on private property? Most require a permit to work on city owned trees but private work only requires a business license.



Trees can have leaves but still be hazardous. You can't base the overall health of a tree as OK based on the tree having leaves. That would be a mistake.

http://www.denvergov.com/Forestry/Ordinances/CFOrd/tabid/387522/Default.aspx

Section 57-17. Definitions.
Words and phrases used in this article shall have the following meaning ascribed to them:
b) Public right-of-way shall mean the area between the curb and the property line of a property, and between the centerline of the alley and the property line of a property.
f) Maintenance shall mean any and all work performed on a tree including, but not limited to, pruning, removing, spraying, injecting, and stump grinding.

Section 57-18. Responsibility for maintenance of trees on public right-of-way or other public place.
(a) The Manager of Parks and Recreation shall have the responsibility, through the City Forester, to either maintain or order the maintenance of trees on the public right-of-way, and other public places.
(b) The Responsible Party of property abutting the public right-of-way shall have the duty to maintain trees on the abutting portion of the public right-of-way.

So it's my property and they're my trees but the city can order me to do what ever they want me to do. If I refuse to do what they decide I should, they'll do it for me and send me the bill. Not too fair is it? I need to move.

 

[lilac]

People here are only trying to help. First, drop the 'tude and get the real facts, then post. You're only seeing the issue from one side.

The facts are nothing I do will change what the city wants. I'll lose no matter what. Don't like my attitude? I wonder what yours would be in my situation?

 

[DonnyO]

So I should be sweet and understanding and everything will work out alright? I seriously doubt that.

Good luck. You are obviously missing the point...........
but I wish you the best of luck:jester:

 

[Streyken]

Section 57-17. Definitions.
Words and phrases used in this article shall have the following meaning ascribed to them:
b) Public right-of-way shall mean the area between the curb and the property line of a property, and between the centerline of the alley and the property line of a property.

Read this carefully. It is not your property.
And I truly apologize that it's our fault.