Fence line trees, pruning and general chat

Well

I had a good laugh yesterday.

Arboralliance and I went to have a look at a job.

You all know my views on fenceline trees, topping, and how the majority of pruning bids here is usually those things.

So, we rock up to the bid and bugger me, guess what, this is what we saw .... I laughed.

Then the neighbour wanted his trees topped (inc a palm!!) for a view of the city.

Well, ole Arboralliance thought i was kidding till he saw what goes on.

I've put a red line on the fenceline. Also, look how much crap is already in the empty pool. Also the tree is some BS foambark tree which the builder told us gives you a rash ... some investigation in my bok said wear gloves, leaves a rash! So, there you go.

My point is clear, do not plant trees where the canopy will go further than your boundary, especially if it's some allergy rash inflicting POS.

Oh, and guess what we did today?

Took down 2 neighbours trees of a customer, poisoned the stumps coz I sold that over a fenceline prune on 2 trees. Tresspassers will be dealt with permanently.

Heck, I even had my back neighbour cut his banana bushes away from the fence, they were dropping leaves on top of my pool out house thingy!

Ekka said:

My point is clear, do not plant trees where the canopy will go further than your boundary,

Click to expand...

Have some consderation, yes, but it's nuts to say the canopy should never overspread a line. Neighbor has the right to prune, no big fuss to put on gloves.

No one in Oz has heard of pool covers?

Hmmmmmmmmm................

LINE CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

haha i hate em too but what ya gonna do

They not only buy the land the house is on but also the sky straight up.Thats what i tell em.If the neighbor wants it pruned correctly tell him to call b4 i work for the other guy and we "will try" to work something out if not.Hackama Hackama.

Im all about savin some trees but a mans family gotta eat.

Pool covers!

I want to see nice clear sparkling water no faded bubble plastic.

I want to just jump in not roll up some plastic cover.

Indeed, once again I have to be inconvenienced by some tree that isn't mine.

Had an elderly customer the other day who's a little ill ask for some fenceline work.

The neighbour had decided to plant (a few years ago) a nice murraya hedge along the side fence. Now that block next door was higher and the soil level at the top of the retaining wall was above head height.

Now this old guy had been keeping this 12' high hedge (actually 20' high from his side) maintained with a pole lopper clipping singular pieces with each cut ... friggin time consuming.

The neighbour wanted it high and only trimmed his side, the top was wide and wooly hanging way over his side.

He had got too old now to trim it and asked if we could do it ... nah, not my gig, be a ladder job and the top, forget it.

So now he has to incur expenses needlessly due to his lovely neighbour and hopefully have some-one do it on A-frame ladders or painters planks/tressels.

I suggested he see a lawyer and have a private nuisance letter drafted forcing his neighbour to maintain or remove the stinking hedge.

Once again, the victim cops the arrogance and stress.

I see more and more of these solicitor letters.

When my neighbour had a wattle dropping heaps of crud in our pool I removed it. Now if he refused i would have quantified $'s as to what it was costing me in time and money to keep my place clean, multiplied that out by tenure and gone to court for compensation. Yes, he can keep his tree, and yes he can pay for my inconvenience.

Anybody else have a copy of that book "Arboriculture and the Law" ?

There's a section in there on the property line trees.

M.D. Vaden said:

Anybody else have a copy of that book "Arboriculture and the Law" ?There's a section in there on the property line trees.

Click to expand...

Yeah but no cases in Oz so not relevant to whacking fanatics like Ekka. I never heard such whining about the trouble to share a plant. beeyotch!:censored:

btw Lew Bloch is writing a second edition of Tree Law Cases in the USA (which also has a boundary line section) If anyone knows of a case that has been adjudicated, drop him a line.

have never trimmed as severe as that photo is suggesting(taking half the side out), but have trimmed many of overhang on property lines from neighbor's tree or shared tree on property line


On a few occassions there has been altercations between neighbor's with me smack in the middle of it. The cops have arrived, the job gets delayed by an hour or so, everyone is pissed off and the cop has to call headquaters cause they usually dont know what the law states. I surely do, but the home owners usually say something to the effect of "that is my tree, I'm calling the cops.... I will have you in court" The cop then finds out, an hour later from his sergeant we are well within legal limitations and we are allowed to continue work. But talk about a hassle!

Does anyone have that law handbook or know where I could get one. It may save us some down time and ease the pissing match.

How much can a tree of that size bend?

Arboriculture & the Law
Your Price: $47.95

Arboriculture & the Law Workbook
Your Price: $7.00

Tree Law Cases in the USA
Your Price: $59.95

at http://secure.isa-arbor.com/store/search.aspx If you're not an isa member pm me about getting em at member price

Mario, why you wanna bend that tree?

Guy

It would be good to see some court cases here but I haven't heard of any.

There are times when the tree is protected though, a dont touch.

Hey, I grew a passionfruit vine on my fence and I asked the neighbour, he was happy, the deal is whatever is on his side he eats ... if he can beat his dog to it.

Some good info running on this thread P3

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?p=487816&posted=1#post487816

And now, just to settle the score on these tresspassing trees which have been thrust onto "victims" here's the law.

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/gateway.asp?c=legalinfo


Due to the way the website is set up you have to follow in this order. Left hand side near top in blue text click on


Civil Law then in green text
Land then in green text
Trees and Plants

Extract for those unable to follow.

Overhanging branches and roots constitute a legal nuisance. The owner of the land on which the plant grows is liable for damage caused. Tenants are not usually liable unless they have planted the plant.

A neighbour affected can raise the matter with the neighbour directly

seek assistance for mediation from the Dispute Resolution Centres

abate the nuisance by cutting off overhanging branches and digging up roots on their property as long as they take care not to cause unnecessary damage to the plant. The overhanging branches and fruit belong to the owner of the tree, they may be returned to the owner or, with the owner's permission, disposed of. Unless the neighbour agrees to pay the cost of removal beforehand, it is necessary to take court action to recover any cost and legal advice should be obtained

commence court proceedings for damages or an injunction, and legal advice should be obtained.

A tree owner may also be liable under the ordinary principles of negligence.

FruitBelongs to the owner of the tree or plant on which it grows.


Fence line trees are the cause of many disputes, and even council gets caught up in the red tape of many laws. The above over rides local law as is a state law, however if the tree is protected then it's another kettle of fish but the responsibility is still on the trunk owner.

I have seen too many lawyers letters getting the trunk owner to prune or remove the tree.

John464 said:

On a few occassions there has been altercations between neighbor's with me smack in the middle of it. The cops have arrived, the job gets delayed by an hour or so, everyone is pissed off and the cop has to call headquaters cause they usually dont know what the law states. I surely do, but the home owners usually say something to the effect of "that is my tree, I'm calling the cops.... I will have you in court" The cop then finds out, an hour later from his sergeant we are well within legal limitations and we are allowed to continue work. But talk about a hassle!

Click to expand...

Case law does not help in that situation. What you need is a copy of the pertinant ordiance for the jurisdiction you are in.

Case law is for courtrooms, cops deal with statutes and ordinances.

One thing to be wary about is that there is prescidance for you incuring liability if your actions cause failure of the tree.

How much air and sky does the homeowner own?
Jeff Lovstrom

As the crow flies from the fenceline directly upwards = infinity.

Not in California, USA! That is just stupid. Homeowners do not own the sky above their property! Hey, that plane is tresspassing!
Jeff Lovstrom

jefflovstrom said:

Not in California, USA! That is just stupid. Homeowners do not own the sky above their property! Hey, that plane is tresspassing!
Jeff Lovstrom

Click to expand...

Sure they do......the FAA has just got a really big easement.

But if that plane's tail was still grounded in your neighbours yard it would be similar to a tree and considered tresspassing.

The logical answer would be to the height of the tree.

Here's some pics of a fenceline and over the roof job I did today.

The back neibs Tuckeroo was hard up on the fence and over the roof over the customers home. We cut to standard and took it back off the roof and close enough to the fencline whilst trying to keep it's form.

The 2 shots are from 2 different angles, we also did the purple flowering Jacaranda next to it but that was only minor stuff so not worth taking a pic.

I agree with TreeCo...work looks to standard and I hate those type of customers...but I also feel if they are going to pay somebody to do the job...it might as well be me

When I look at those pics...I also think I should be documenting my work...putting together a portfolio...that is two A+'s

So Ekka it looks like when you are done slaying palms, you mutilate hardwoods. If that fence is the line, you trespassed with that lower cut, which is certain to rot the trunk and likely to shorten the sage useful life of that tree. No way did you have to go that hard, and no way is it to usa standards:

5.5.3 says no more than 25%

5.6.4.1 says you must consider species toerance. No species I know can tolerate a cut like that big lower one. That lower branch did not threaten the house. You could have made smaller cuts further out and achieved your client's goals of clearing the roof, minimizing shade and litter, or whatever.

Dan can you do that black line magic to show our friend the difference between proper reduction and needless damage?