Trimming legally unclimbable trees

[Umbellularia]

My neighbors have six bay trees (Umbellularia californica - California bay laurel) along our mutual property line. Branches coming over the line are negatively impacting my roof. I need to trim them.

Here's the problem: The woman next door has a psychological/mental condition wherein she refuses requests. Her husband knows to toe the party line. Everyone else here knows not to ask them to do anything with their yard. Years ago further neighbors were unable to get their fifth wheel out our dead end street because my immediate neighbors refused to trim their tree branches growing onto the road. It was only when their own cars starting getting scratched that they trimmed. So: Permission to trim or climb the trees will not be forthcoming.

Trees #1 through #5 lean to the east, i.e. away from me. When they eventually rot out at the base, they won't be my problem. Canopy development of these trees is primarily to the east. Tree #6 leans toward my back yard. Its canopy development is primarily to the west. (#5 and #6 reacted to each other and grew in opposite directions.) Tree #2 is on the property line, so I have some say in it.

Trees #1, #3, and #5 aren't really a challenge. The, um, um, deer and squirrels keep those under control for me. I think I could climb tree #2 from my side of the line. The challenge is deciding what to cut. Tree #4 is the big problem. The offending branches are 40 to 50 feet up. Tree #6 has offending branches from 15 feet all the way to its top. It has both access and strategy issues.

Options:

Bucket truck: It would have to park on a one lane road on a slope. The ground here is dubiously soft. The arm would then need to reach 50+ feet laterally.

Portable lift: The work is on a slope. There are also serious access issues.

Pole saw from the ground: I've cut with up to a 33 foot long pole saw. At these heights, the only option is to cut the side of a branch vertically. This usually results in a pinched blade when the branch starts drooping.

Pole saw laterally while climbing #2: #4 is too far away. #6 is even further.

Ascending straight up a rope hanging from #4's branch(es), staying on my side of the property line: I think the limb is still too small, too far from the trunk.

Tarzan swing while climbing #2: Maybe with a lateral line to an anchor 100 feet away...

Scaffolding: I have some. I could build a tower along the property line, bracing it to the house. And then use a normal length pole saw...

Gadget: Somehow raise a saw up to the branch(es) and operate it from the ground.

---

Any suggestions?

 

[Del_]

It sounds quite the neighborhood!

 

[lone wolf]

Sounds best to avoid this quagmire.

 

[ericm979]

Sometimes there's a problem person in the neighborhood. We used to have one. My sympathies.

I assume that leaving the trees as they are is not an option. Otherwise you would not have posted.

They make arborist lifts that can work from uneven ground. I think I have even seen them for rent but I'm not sure. You could hire an arborist and have them do the work from your side.

Can you force the issue? Like by just going ahead and doing the work that needs to be done from their side? I mean what are they going to do other than complain? There's also the possibility of invoking the law. If the trees damage your house it's likely going to be their liability. There may be options to force them to either allow access or do the work themselves. I understand that may further poison relations but at this point it sounds like they are already bad.

 

[Mad Professor]

Roundup!!!!

 

[Umbellularia]

They make arborist lifts that can work from uneven ground. I think I have even seen them for rent but I'm not sure. You could hire an arborist and have them do the work from your side.

As I said: Access issues, but not insurmountable. However I've never seen any tree services using those lifts anywhere around here.

I understand that may further poison relations but at this point it sounds like they are already bad.

I'd describe relations as cordial - just with a hard boundary.

Roundup!!!!

Especially with the trees leaning away from me... (Ooh, just remembered that the power company did exactly this when their line clearance crew was denied.)

 

[GrizG]

Overkill?



Ballistic trimming?

On the realistic side: Me personally, I'd send them a certified, return receipt, letter informing them of the hazards. If and when something does happen they would be 100% liable... This is based on personal experience. Our back property line neighbor had a lot of ash trees that succumbed to the EAB. I took down 50+ ash from my family's property and other neighbors removed many trees... easily numbering into the 100s on that street. The back line neighbor was notified as outlined above and did nothing. When one of their ash smashed our 1 car garage sized shed we submitted a claim with our insurance company along with a copy of the letter and receipt. We let the insurance company handle it... The neighbor was deemed 100% responsible and between the shed replacement, other damage, and tree removal it was expensive... There was no need for us to get directly involved with the neighbors... people who could well afford to have the trees removed.

 

[Lightning Performance]

Ariel specialist can and will rig them down if you run the rope. Anything on the line or over it is fair game in NJ that needs to be trimmed over your property. Just remember when you scalp the line they will lean the other way. If they die you may or may not be liable. Check your local laws and ordinances. Sometimes zoning can get involved if needed. Anything your insurance company deems necessary gets done, yes?

 

[jefflovstrom]

,,,,,,,,
Jeff
It was a beautiful day!

 

[thenne1713]

Ariel specialist can and will rig them down if you run the rope. Anything on the line or over it is fair game in NJ that needs to be trimmed over your property. Just remember when you scalp the line they will lean the other way. If they die you may or may not be liable. Check your local laws and ordinances. Sometimes zoning can get involved if needed. Anything your insurance company deems necessary gets done, yes?

Problem is, aerial trimming this way, cut limbs will fall on roof causing damage vs preventing damage.

 

[mikewhite85]

My neighbors have six bay trees (Umbellularia californica - California bay laurel) along our mutual property line. Branches coming over the line are negatively impacting my roof. I need to trim them.

Here's the problem: The woman next door has a psychological/mental condition wherein she refuses requests. Her husband knows to toe the party line. Everyone else here knows not to ask them to do anything with their yard. Years ago further neighbors were unable to get their fifth wheel out our dead end street because my immediate neighbors refused to trim their tree branches growing onto the road. It was only when their own cars starting getting scratched that they trimmed. So: Permission to trim or climb the trees will not be forthcoming.

Trees #1 through #5 lean to the east, i.e. away from me. When they eventually rot out at the base, they won't be my problem. Canopy development of these trees is primarily to the east. Tree #6 leans toward my back yard. Its canopy development is primarily to the west. (#5 and #6 reacted to each other and grew in opposite directions.) Tree #2 is on the property line, so I have some say in it.

Trees #1, #3, and #5 aren't really a challenge. The, um, um, deer and squirrels keep those under control for me. I think I could climb tree #2 from my side of the line. The challenge is deciding what to cut. Tree #4 is the big problem. The offending branches are 40 to 50 feet up. Tree #6 has offending branches from 15 feet all the way to its top. It has both access and strategy issues.

Options:

Bucket truck: It would have to park on a one lane road on a slope. The ground here is dubiously soft. The arm would then need to reach 50+ feet laterally.

Portable lift: The work is on a slope. There are also serious access issues.

Pole saw from the ground: I've cut with up to a 33 foot long pole saw. At these heights, the only option is to cut the side of a branch vertically. This usually results in a pinched blade when the branch starts drooping.

Pole saw laterally while climbing #2: #4 is too far away. #6 is even further.

Ascending straight up a rope hanging from #4's branch(es), staying on my side of the property line: I think the limb is still too small, too far from the trunk.

Tarzan swing while climbing #2: Maybe with a lateral line to an anchor 100 feet away...

Scaffolding: I have some. I could build a tower along the property line, bracing it to the house. And then use a normal length pole saw...

Gadget: Somehow raise a saw up to the branch(es) and operate it from the ground.

---

Any suggestions?

My initial question is, in what way are they negatively impacting your roof? How close are they? Do they need to be trimmed for fire clearance or insurance purposes?

What I'm getting at is are you certain they NEED to be trimmed?

I would advise you to have an ISA certified or ASCA arborist take a look to help determine if this is the case. Also, if I recall correctly California Bay trees are protected by the state. For many municipalities you will need a permit to even touch them.

 

[ericm979]

I would advise you to have an ISA certified or ASCA arborist take a look to help determine if this is the case.

Yep.

Also, if I recall correctly California Bay trees are protected by the state.

It's not on the state or federal endangered and threatened plants list or proposed for same as of Oct 2022.

For many municipalities you will need a permit to even touch them.

You may need permits for tree removal depending on your city/county. Some cities/counties define their own list of heritage or protected or commercial tree species. My county does not list California Bay as one of those but another might. An arborist would know the current rules and be able to get the permit.

 

[sean donato]

I have the same issue with my neighbor. Talked with the township, they don't care as long as I don't do anything to kill the trees. The two out of the line that I would trim the hardest, I would really rather take down as they both have hard leans towards my house and branches have caused considerable damage to my roof. So that left trimming them out of the question. After speaking with my insurance company, they said to get his insurance to cover it, I would need them inspected and a certified letter sent to him stating the hazard tree(s) have been reccomended to need trimmed and or removed to avoid (further) property damage. Which we did. He refused the letter, but from what the insurance company said his rejection is enough, for them to go after his insurance company for damages.

 

[Umbellularia]

Overkill?

View attachment 1039816

Ballistic trimming?

Heh, heh! A heli is probably not practical here - but I presume a crane could be used instead. So add this to the list (though unlikely.)

Just remember when you scalp the line they will lean the other way. If they die you may or may not be liable.

As I said, #1 through #5 already lean away from me. A more practical concern is that I might trim tree A, and then tree B falls over. I might be blamed even though I didn't touch B. It fell over on its own because it developed 100% lopsided.

,,,,,,,,

Have to wait for a sunny dry day. Sun is out now, but we are still drying...

Problem is, aerial trimming this way, cut limbs will fall on roof causing damage vs preventing damage.

Implementation detail. Bay trees are the one species for which I'm very familiar with how they react to cutting.

My initial question is, in what way are they negatively impacting your roof? How close are they? Do they need to be trimmed for fire clearance or insurance purposes?

Fire clearance. The trees drop stuff - this past acorn season I was bombarded by hundreds with some impacts hard enough to shake the house. Enough shade that I have a moss problem. Some lower hanging branches could "broom" the roof thus pulling shingles off. (Branches that low I could of course access.)

Also, if I recall correctly California Bay trees are protected by the state.

Protection for the local weed tree? Hah! Especially as they harbor the Sudden Oak Death virus. (I'll assert that every last bay tree in town really is carrying the virus.)

You may need permits for tree removal depending on your city/county.

Last I checked, the only rule for my area is a limit of one sizable tree per year - and that can be batched up. Plus, after a major fire in the area, I doubt limits are being enforced.

There exist timber harvest rules. After looking into that, I have the urge to clear cut my property, never let any new trees grow, mill the cut trees into beautiful lumber, setup across the street from a CDF office, feed all the lumber through a chipper, and immediately incinerate all the chips.

 

[pdqdl]

If and when something does happen they would be 100% liable.

Kinda doubtful. Telling someone their tree is a problem for you doesn't make it their liability. As property owner, you are able to prune anything on your side of the property line, providing that your trimming does not significantly damage the tree. I'd be willing to bet that no amount of letter writing will convince a judge that just because you sent the the defendant a letter, the judge should now determine that they owe you money. The facts of a case and the laws determine liability, not the letters written about those facts.

If the trees in question are authentically encroaching on your building, you should be able to manage any such problem with a pole pruner from the roof of your building. Perhaps just a ladder leaning up against your building.

 

[GrizG]

Kinda doubtful. Telling someone their tree is a problem for you doesn't make it their liability. As property owner, you are able to prune anything on your side of the property line, providing that your trimming does not significantly damage the tree. I'd be willing to bet that no amount of letter writing will convince a judge that just because you sent the the defendant a letter, the judge should now determine that they owe you money. The facts of a case and the laws determine liability, not the letters written about those facts.

If the trees in question are authentically encroaching on your building, you should be able to manage any such problem with a pole pruner from the roof of your building. Perhaps just a ladder leaning up against your building.

As I wrote... we got 100% reimbursement from the neighbor by having documentation that they were informed their trees were a hazard... The insurance company handled it all. Without that notification it would have been a act of god and covered under our insurance and we'd have had to eat the deductible. Now if you choose to try the courts that is a different story...

 

[Umbellularia]

The dark wedge at the top is the edge of my roof (gable end). The fence is mine - property line is inches beyond it. Camera position is distorting the apparent angles - the trees on the left are actually growing plumb (at least in the left/right sense).

Tree #2 is the big trunk entering from the right. #1 is hiding behind it - the two thinner limbs at the lower right are actually from #1. #3 is the tree in the middle. #4 is the big trunk entering from the left. #5 is also visible entering from the left. #6 is not in the picture.

Recapping: Tree #2 has plenty of limbs coming my way, but none over the house yet. Tree #4 has several limbs overhanging the house, each higher than the previous limb.

 

[lone wolf]

Kinda doubtful. Telling someone their tree is a problem for you doesn't make it their liability. As property owner, you are able to prune anything on your side of the property line, providing that your trimming does not significantly damage the tree. I'd be willing to bet that no amount of letter writing will convince a judge that just because you sent the the defendant a letter, the judge should now determine that they owe you money. The facts of a case and the laws determine liability, not the letters written about those facts.

If the trees in question are authentically encroaching on your building, you should be able to manage any such problem with a pole pruner from the roof of your building. Perhaps just a ladder leaning up against your building.

Unless it is a hazard tree and you notify them in writing with a registered letter, then they fail to take action or remedy it ,then it falls and causes damage then there is a legal case. No one wants to be sued. Around here if a dead tree is a hazard to a neighbor even the code enforcer can force them to remove it with threat of fines.
I know we were talking about live branches but I just thought I would add this.

 

[mikewhite85]

View attachment 1040810

The dark wedge at the top is the edge of my roof (gable end). The fence is mine - property line is inches beyond it. Camera position is distorting the apparent angles - the trees on the left are actually growing plumb (at least in the left/right sense).

Tree #2 is the big trunk entering from the right. #1 is hiding behind it - the two thinner limbs at the lower right are actually from #1. #3 is the tree in the middle. #4 is the big trunk entering from the left. #5 is also visible entering from the left. #6 is not in the picture.

Recapping: Tree #2 has plenty of limbs coming my way, but none over the house yet. Tree #4 has several limbs overhanging the house, each higher than the previous limb.

How many feet are the closest branches from your roof? I know a picture doesn't always tell the whole story but it doesn't look like they are very close or would risk touching your roof. Can they be reached by trimming them from the roof with a pole saw?

 

[pdqdl]

I think most of us know a hazard tree when we see it. A 90' tall dead cottonwood with widely spreading branchs, located on the fenceline between two properties would be an example.

I've had that situation, but city code enforcement wouldn't do a damned thing. I recommended the "registered letter" approach, as has been mentioned. The homeowner's insurance advised customer that they should prune out the dangerous limbs at their own expense, or... wait for the branches to do damage, in which they would cover the roof damage and removal of fallen branches from the roof.

I've dealt with insurance companies on houses struck by obviously hazardous trees on abandoned properties. They nearly always pay for structural damage and removal of branches from the structure, less any deductible. They almost never pay for disposal of the fallen branches, nor do they allow tossing the fallen branches back onto the property from which they fell.

Insurance companies, lawyers, and the courts apparently don't like to get involved with proving any liability issues concerning trees. They just allow every property owner to fend for themselves.

I suppose that might change if there was a medical claim from somebody getting beaned by a falling branch.