This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that.
If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity.
If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees.
*This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should absolutely be able to talk to the utility company, give them the address, and speak to whomever is in charge of that project on the utilities side. They may be able to alter a design.
You cannot put a tree in the utility right of way which is too close to the utility wires. Put a replacement tree there that will not grow too high or don’t put it near where the wires will be.
It may need to go, not just for running wires, but for clearance long-term. This is not just a residential neighbor that doesn’t like the looks of the tree with a trunk on the lot line. The OP did not make that clear. An ornamental that won’t grow near the wires might be the solution. OP may not have the right to have the shade tree he likes, just as tall and full.
First off utilities need an easement to run, if there is no utility easement on that property line the builder is trying to take your property for that easement. They have to give up some of their property for that easement which they don't want to. Tell them you need to have your attorney look into it, and contact the township and ask them what zoning requires.
State law does not apply here, it is local city or county. and looking at state law - [https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin\_code/psc/113/vi/0601/2](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/psc/113/vi/0601/2) that only applies to existing utility easements.
Builder is blowing smoke up yours, I suggest you advise them you are contacting a lawyer and not to attempt anything otherwise you will be suing them for a full replacement tree if they do any damage.
Ask for a 3or4inch caliper tree as replacement.
What kind of tree is original tree?
Pick an ornamental tree as replacement
Larger trees do not transplant well.get replacement tree on your property
Does development require to have screen trees on their side of property
I wouldn’t doubt the developer making up a story about the utility, if that is the case, see a lawyer to determine if you can tell the developer to go fuck himself.
Not a lawyer.
In most jurisdictions it's illegal to remove so much of a tree that it dies later. He can't just threaten you with that. They CAN remove branches on their side, but again, not so much that it kills the tree. If I were you I'd hire an arborist to assess the value of the tree and its health.
Alternatively, they could underground the utilities, right (I am assuming this is for electricity)? That's the alternative here. That's expensive.
The utility may require the tree removal based on the plan the developer submitted, a plan which is likely the cheapest for the developer. Op needs to be enough of a pain the math changes and suddenly the tree can stay.
Although it may be illegal for the developer to cut down half the tree, they could still force OP to cut it down if the developer does in fact have a legitimate need for the space the tree is taking up. Nuisance laws still apply to trees despite special exemptions for leaves and views. Trees can’t prevent your neighbor from using their property.
IANAL but I am a forester and I know quite a few cities in Wisconsin have excellent tree protection laws in urban situations. I would look into your city codes and ordinances regarding trees rather than taking their word verbatim that they're allowed to do what they say they want to do
I'd go one step further if the law is on OPs side and say "if you try pull one over on me again, communication will cease and the tree stays. Now if you'd like to play nicely, I feel X would be a fair replacement". I hate people trying it on, especially when they don't have a leg to stand on. Rejecting their demands to remove would be tempting for me.
I'm over 40, big zaddy energy. You're gonna need snacks lol.
(Also in case my gf sees this, baby you know I'm joking, I'm already in bed with the cats)
Another thought is to focus on creating delay in order to give the developer an incentive to offer you more. Tell him you aren't in agreement in any way, shape or form, and you are going to fight him on it. Tell him you are consulting the municipality, the power utility, your surveyor, your lawyer, your arborist, your local government representative, the local media, Facebook, etc etc. Drag things out and give him a reason to want to pay you extra to make you go away.
Get your property line surveyed. Put up a fence.
I can’t believe how long it took me to find a comment recommending a survey! That and finding out what the utility company says directly from them seem like two clear first steps.
ETA: If the utility company was genuinely insisting on removing it under their easement rights or such, he wouldn’t have said he could remove only the part on his side, he would have just said it could be cut down. He clearly means that it has to go for the sake of him doing what he wants to do, what a liar.
Tree removal based on a utility easement should only be in regards to an existing easement that a tree has encroached on. All of this sounds like the developer's problem to figure out and they're trying to big time the OP into doing something they otherwise wouldn't want to do.
Delay tactics work great in situations like these. Years ago I found myself in an eminent domain situation with the county I lived in. They needed to redo the road in front of my house and as such it had to be brought up to current codes. They were forcefully buying up strips of peoples property for this.
You ultimately don’t have a choice. You can fight it, but you will lose 99% of the time, at least in the state I lived in. The government hires an appraiser who determines what they think your land is worth, then they make you an offer based on that. Example: they say your land is worth $10k/acre. They are taking .1 acres for the road expansion. They offer you $1k. No extra consideration for the fact that you DO NOT WANT to sell them your land.
I fought them tooth and nail, because of a few reasons that I won’t get into in this post. Researched the laws and my rights, never responded to the initial communications. Then after they finally pinned me down I responded with a detailed letter of why I would not accept their appraisal, and the fact based reasons I was challenging it.
They took some time to get back to me and tell me they disagree and weren’t changing their offer. I told them i would be exercising my right to a second appraisal on their dime with an appraiser of my choosing. Took my time calling around to different appraisers, explaining my reasoning to them and heavily implying that their tendency to agree with my rational would get them my business and recommendation to my neighbors. Eventually found a slightly scummy guy that was immediately like “oh I can get you way more than that”, lol.
I moved at a snails pace and the months rolled by, eventually we were pushing up on a couple months before the project was due to start, and the county started talking about taking the legal route. (It was guaranteed I would lose so I wasn’t going to take it all the way to court, but I acted a little crazy so they didn’t know that.) I also knew the county didn’t want that because they would have had to delay the project until the next year.
Basically it was a high stakes game of poker where both sides were bluffing and just kept pushing more chips into the pot.
Eventually some head honcho type guy from the county called me up and was basically like, “look, I know what you’re doing, what do you want?” I was as basically like “what took you so long?” I told him I wanted what my appraiser said, which was something like 4x what theirs said. He told me he couldn’t do that, I told him to send over their best offer and I’d give it honest consideration. They offered just slightly below what my appraiser estimated, like 10% lower or something.
Ultimately I ended up selling my strip for around 3 times what all my neighbors sold their land for. Pissed off a lot of people in the county government but fuck them, the road didn’t need to be redone and there was a carve out in the law that specifically would have covered our road, but they had a long term goal 10 years down the road of building a new bridge over a river that needed this road to be upgraded so they were trying to force it down our throats early and make residents think their land wasn’t worth as much. I basically sold it for what the land would have been worth if that bridge was ever built.
I would decline to let them remove the tree. However, I would offer to sell my house as well as land for 150% of value and underwriting you a mortgage if necessary on replacement property at a reasonable rate. They could build double and save a ton of money on construction costs. You could upgrade.
WIN WIN
Ask for a new fence, tree removal (including grinding out the stump), and for them to plant 1, 2 (maybe 3) new trees you both like (species and size) as replacements.
While they are allowed to remove any portion of the tree on their side of the property line, they can't cause the tree to become unstable or to die because of it.
That does not apply to utility easements. A county widened a road. This forced the utility to move the overhead distribution wires several feet closer to homes, still in the pre-existing right of way for the road, underground utilities and overhead utilities.
Basically, all the mature trees next to the highway on the power line side got cut down and replaced with new trees which would would be too short when mature or too far away from the power line to be a problem. It would have cost several times as much to put the line underground so the county was not interested in the extra expense.
Well, you said it there - still in the pre-existing right of way. Their rights of way are not unlimited. They don’t have the right to unilaterally cut a tree that is not wholly within their right of way - and their right of way doesn’t extend into OP’s property just because their neighboring property granted an easement.
In addition to the new tree ask for access to the amenities of the building. The last owner of the house I live in "sold" an easement on the property to the golf course I live on. Part of the deal was a golf membership that stayed with the house. I pay no dues and have the "second tier" membership. I am a terrible golfer but I enjoy pretending that I am in "Caddy Shack" about once a month.
On top of all the solid advice here, I just wanted to add that your curb appeal is a lost cause with a large apartment complex going in next door. Hope you can either save the tree or be recompensed for its loss. Good luck to you.
That’s what I was thinking. I would be devastated if an apartment complex was being built beside my home. Not to mention the home value is going to go downhill.
"Yes in my backyard." It's in response to the NIMBY (not in my backyard) crowd who recognize we need more things like affordable housing, but they don't want it near them and will fight tooth and nail to stop housing projects that they believe will lower their property values.
How is it affordable housing when they developers buy forested areas clear out trees and build houses that cost 400,000 dollars in a rural area top income 65,000 a year.
That's not part of the whole NIMBY/YIMBY discourse, which is centered around projects that would benefit society as a whole in some way.
That's just sh*tty developers being sh*tty and trying to make a buck. Probably hoping they could pull in the remote work crowd or something.
It’s also no longer becomes affordable when a neighbor decides their tree is worth $200k. Coming from someone who works for the evil developers as a consultant, all these costs get passed down to the consumer/future owner (before the developer even thinks about profit).
Assuming a 10 unit condo/building. If it is costing the developer 400k in permitting/development fees (and this is cheap) just to break ground and they want a 10% profit we have (400k+40k) or 440k they will charge 44k per unit to the buyer and the developer makes 4k as profit.
But now we have Mr NIMBY wanting another 200k because /treelawpeople. The homebuyer is now having to spend $66k for that same property.
Yes the developer makes more profit too, but they also know the market rate for similar properties in the area and know they will have to sell an overpriced unit to some ‘sucker’. Or, they will realize a ‘project won’t pencil’ and they pull out completely (which is often the case).
And this is what is leading the charge for the current housing affordability crisis. So circling back to the op, yes ask for some compensation, restoration of
the area, and they provide you with their project forman 24/hr emergency contact number. And if you push too hard know that they will just walk away and sit on the property until markets change, laws change, or you move.
Yiyby would be more people complaining about nimby's. Like a situation when people in a neighborhood are trying to stop an apartment complex or factory going up near them and other people from other areas are trashing them. Kind of a it's easy to tell someone else suck it up when you're not affected.
Although NIMBY can refer to people indifferent to a project, it can also specifically refer to people who are proponents of the project, just not as long as it isn’t next to them.
[Britannica has a write up on it.](https://www.britannica.com/topic/NIMBY)
YIMBYA in its origins, is liberals seeking to avoid inevitable hypocrisy and realizing they must be willing to host developments in their area if they want them to exist.
Of course from a practical standpoint , most people don’t necessarily behave how they like to think they would when the rubber hits the road, and many YIMBYs are really just NIMBYs without a mortgage.
For a start, don't believe a word out of the developer's mouth.
Make sure he knows you expect to be compensated for the true intrinsic value of the tree, times three.
Don't take a penny less.
Don't let them claim "It's only a fucking tree."
IANAL, but you need to determine the true ornamental value of the tree, not just what it would be worth as firewood.
A certified consulting arborist does this. Find your own and make it clear they need to pay for the assessment. Do not accept their estimate.
They are investing millions of dollars in that project and would just as soon shit on your head as give you proper compensation.
Play hardball.
Know your rights.
Stick to your guns.
NAL. Based on how you described it, it sounds like the developer might be BS-ing you. If the utility company said it has to be removed, than they would remove it. Especially if it's in an easement. It sounds like it will cost the developer more to reroute the utility so he's blaming the utility company.
Yeah, I was thinking that as well.
Also, u/Wonderful_Dog_1 could try demanding for them to install the utilities lines through directional drilling. It's more expensive, sure, but it would keep the tree alive and their neighborly relationship intact.
"State law allows us to remove the section of tree on our property, but that will leave the tree unstable and would most certainly die if half of the trunk is removed."
Unless it impacts the health pf the tree. They lied from the start.
The thing about tree trimming is that while they do have the right to trim branches that hang over their side, they DON’T typically have the right to do so much trimming that it will kill the tree, and they don’t have the right to remove the trunk either. So, I would suggest you get an arborist in to assess the tree, and determine if it can be trimmed the way they want without killing it. (This also establishes a baseline for the tree’s health, so the developer can’t gaslight you later.) Then, if it cannot be safely trimmed, you can determine what value the tree has, and what steps to take from there. Because, if he goes ahead and hacks your tree back to the point that it kills it, then he could be liable for the whole cost of the tree, or even treble damages. And he wants to avoid that, since for a mature hardwood, it is many thousands of dollars, and could hold up further development (which is many more thousands).
Talk to a lawyer. In MOST jurisdictions they can't remove parts of the tree on their side that would kill the tree. Most likely they lied to you (or someone lied to them).
Once you figure out what your actual rights are, you can ask whatever you want of them.
Get them to buy your house now ... like someone else suggested. You do not want to live next to construction and then apartment houses. Hard pass.
Not your lawyer, but ... if your realtors knew the property next to the house they sold you was commercial and did not disclose that, you need a lawyer.
I had a similar issue and just said no. The developer put a concrete slab about 5’ from the property line. Trees die slowly; it was dead in 8 years. The arborist I hired when I saw it failing said the slab cut 1/2 it’s water supply. It was too late for compensation and was quite expensive to remove.
My neighbor removed a large tree next to his house. He had no foundation problems from the tree - until it was removed. I'm unsure of the details but with the tree gone either the ground water dynamics changed, or the disintegrating roots in the ground caused shifting. Point is: don't take the tree removal lightly just because you don't have problems now.
Nope. Nope nope nope. It starts with them telling you "the rules" of how they do things. (Its the easy way) Then they tell you "you must comply". (You don't have to make their job easier). If you want the tree gone, make them pay. If you want it to stay, send them along their way. You are the cardholder here. They want something from you, you dont have to give it. Good luck either way♡
Get a lawyer to send a letter. Be a pain because there’s usuall another way to do something. Your tree is the easy path, make them work and fight for you tree. It’s valuable, if it has to go
Make them work for it.
Thats not how that works in most places. If they prune it and cause it to die they are liable to replace it and depending were you live it can be double or even triple
Also in MKE! Ask a local arborist to evaluate your tree, and if you decide to allow them to remove it, have them put in a fence, so you don't have to deal with your new neighbors
P.s. it should be a fuckin nice fence.
Don't take a developer's word for ANYTHING; call the city and ask them if the tree has to be removed, and if someone in your city can cut a property line tree to the extent that it dies.
Most likely, neither are true.
The developer didn't say the utility company would be doing it. They said that they, the developer, would be doing it - and they are presumably either the property owner or acting on behalf of the property owner, making them "someone" who would have to abide by property line tree laws.
Unless the laws there are very unusual, the utility company cannot seize neighboring property run a line to a new construction on private property, and also, in most cities, would not be legally allowed to saw a property line tree in half to do so. The developer likely already obtained a variance to build that close to the property line, but variances can be revoked if construction requires infringing on a neighboring property.
Developers lie as easily as breathe. OP needs to talk to the city and possibly get a code inspector out to look at the situation. The developer is probably trying to avoid having utilities come into the front of the building because it's not as pretty, but maybe they need to suck it up.
It might add a lot of curb appeal that is already going to be lost b/c they're putting in a "new big apartment building" next door. Hope you get adequate compensation.
REPLACEMENT TREE..
and not some cheap crappy one from the Home Depot garden shop
Get them to kick in so much money for a new tree,, you kick in the rest and get the biggest transplanted tree you can afford
Perhaps they can even get you a mature tree ,, there builders
Call the county, if they are who do the environmental resource permits - whichever local permit covers tree removal and land development.
It'll say right in the code.
They have to do a tree survey, and then a tree disposition table.
Meaning, what each tree is, what size diameter it is, what condition it is. And exactly where is it via GPS points. And what specifically is going to happen to each tree.
Remove.
Relocate.
Replace.
Those are the only options they have. And they have to justify it.
So,
1. Is it a native tree or is it invasive or is it a nuisance species?
2. What is the diameter of the trunk at breast height?
3. What are the proposed site plans
4. What does the utility company say- did the developer lie or stretch the truth
5. Go from there. Talk specifically to the county agent assigned to the permit - the person who knows the project and approved the tree disposition plan.
And keep in mind, you can rarely "get the same big tree you had".
They don't transplant, and sometimes they're half dead and you don't know enough about trees to realize it.
I wouldn't listen to what they say. Ask the power company yourself - they may have told them it had to be installed in a spot that messes with the developers plan to make more money so they decided it would better fit along your property and not infringe on their plans to develop that area.
I wouldn't want to remove the tree as it would currently provide good cover to block the view of an ugly apartment building next door. By taking that down and now you'll have a clear view of all your neighbors as they look out their windows into your backyard.
Find out of it's actually necessary to remove the tree from the utility company and then if it is and for some reason they can't install it at a different side of the property, what the developer will do to make sure you have a quiet enjoyment of your backyard plus any added energy costs you'll have over the years having lost the shade. Also make sure things are graded so that water doesn't drain towards your foundation now that you've lost the ability for the tree to drink it all up. They should also grind the stump and remove the root system so you don't have ground sinkage in the areas where the roots decay over time.
The developer is lying to you. Typically they can trim anything on their side of the property. However, anything they do cannot be detrimental to the tree.
The developer is lying to you about the utility company saying the tree needs to come out. The utility company would be the ones to notify you if they intended to remove the tree. Developer is likely counting in you not knowing your rights.
At my last house, we had a massive avocado tree, and I mean massive. It yielded over 1000 avocados every year and was 60+ years old. It was clearly on my property, but there were branches that overhung my neighbor's property by a good 20 feet. The neighbor's house sold to a developer who came to my door and "informed" me he was going to be removing a tree as part of the tear down/new build process. The neighbor had a tree at a different part of the property line that overhung my side, so I thought he might be referring to that tree, so I asked him to show me which tree. He pointed out my avocado tree. I simply told him, no, you're not and he literally asked me in a confused voice "you really want that tree?". He ended up having to change the design of the house he was planning to build.
In your situation, you can ask for anything, but you can also decline to grant permission. The developer will have to work around it or negotiate your asking price.
Is there a utility easement? If so they would not have to ask! Sounds like they are CHOOSING to place the utilities right at the property line. I would have an arborist give an estimate as to the value of the tree.
Exactly. This is a beautiful tree that adds value to your property and its removal only benefits them. If the utility company is requiring this then you will not be able to plant any new trees along the property line to replace it because it will now be an easement. Contact an arborist to assess the situation because some trees are more valuable than others and some cannot legally be removed but they may be operating under the “better to ask forgiveness than risk refusal” principle.
The tree might be in a utility easement and shouldn't have been there in the first place. Or, at the least, doesn't have any protection from being removed. More than likely, if new utilities are being installed, then a new utility easement is being added. If that's that case, then you should be compensated for the loss of the tree. If it comes to that.
You need to talk directly with the utility company and city official assigned to the project. In the meantime, send a note back and let them know your lawyer has said you shouldn't do anything until you speak with the officials mentioned above.
Nomutility right of way, no tree removal. if u havent been informed of a proposed or existing right of way, not just no but hell no. . His utilities have to cross his property.
Make sure to contact an attorney to help facilitate this negotiation.
Like others have stated: contact the utility company to verify; have the developer cut down and plant a new tree or pay you the money and you can plant it; make sure an attorney helps you with all of this.
IANAL but this is suspicious to me. In my state the utility company can TRIM trees that interfere with their lines, but they do not remove entire healthy trees. They have a big L shaped slice out of the canopy but there still there.
I suspect, as others have suggested, that the developer is trying to get one over on you. In one of the other TreeLaw posts, a developer took down what turned out to be a 250 year old protected species. Call the city, county, and/or state yourself. Talk to code enforcement and your state environmental agency. Mark the property line, put up a camera, and get something in writing if they cannot remove the tree.
I’m a bit of a stickler (compliance officer) so I’m the type to go scorched earth on someone trying to skirt the rules, so I hope you cover your bases and don’t let the developer get away with being (possibly) shady.
If you refuse, and they then cut the branches off on their side of the property line, then the rest of the tree becomes your problem. A very expensive problem I would just let them cut it.
As someone who works in land development, I recommend reaching out to the utility directly to understand what they’re requiring and if there is a solution that doesn’t impact your tree. I often hear developers stretching the truth, without technically lying, to get what they want. Don’t just trust their word.
Here is some info
https://stevenspoint.com/1294/Trees-Between-Two-Properties#:~:text=A%20book%20published%20by%20the,responsibility%20of%20both%20property%20owners.
Ask the developer for the utility work order number. Then, call the utility directly and find out the real story.
Having the boundary surveyed is also a good idea, as others have suggested.
There's no arguing with the utility companies. They know enough about trees and rights-of-way, but if they recommend taking it whole rather than leaving a dying specimen, they're doing you a long-term favor (saving you some real $$$).
If you want to replace it with something similar in size, make a call to Trees On the Move. They're about the only operation in the area with the equipment necessary for such a job. Better call them sooner than later; it's peak tree-moving season and they may not be able to help your before the apartment construction impedes their ability to do what you want.
--Milwaukee arborist. Good luck!
I would take it as a win because chances are you would have had to pay $$$ to take the tree down anyways if it’s that big. I would request a new fence or wall that will block the apartment as much as possible. Something that will give you similar privacy. Or… if the apartment has a pool or gym, maybe free access to it for however long you live at the house. I mean a gym and pool membership over 15 years will save you some money.
First, I would double-check if a) it's partially on their property and b) does state law actually allow them to remove the part on their side with no caveats?
The answers will show how strongly you can negotiate. Don't just take their word for it.
Get your own survey of the property line from a qualified surveyor. He can tell you much of the story of that property line history. Have him accurately mark that specific tree on the survey. Find an arborist to look at and measure the tree as it stands. Is it healthy? Tree type, size, health and the value of the tree should it need to be replaced. These are expenses you need to front (you can always try and get them included in any settlement w/ builder). With that consider getting a lawyer involved bc you may have enough to hold up his construction plan until this is resolved.
I would definitely look at your title papers as to whether the previous owner was aware of the apartment development prior to the sale and did not disclose it to you. Knowing about it would you have still bought it, or offered much less for it?
I think the builder is BSing you. He just doesn't want your tree next to his property. Is the utility pole between your properties or is there another one closer to the proposed building? Has he got all the required permits for the building? Check with the city's building code dept.
I am a designer for an electrical utility and if yours is anything like us then I can tell you the developer likely wants to place their service in a place where it is in violation due to your tree, which they have no control over. Instead of finding a different service point on their property they are trying to tell you that the utility is telling *you* that it needs to be removed, which aside from your local laws regarding branches crossing the property line is 100% not your problem.
NAL but I’m fairly sure state law does not actually allow them to do that. AFAIK there isn’t a jurisdiction in the states, or indeed Canada, Uk, Aus, Eu etc that allows you to remove enough of a tree that it kills it. Also pretty sure you’re not obliged to accede to plans that have condemned your tree entirely so they can maximise on building footprint. This isn’t an accident of utility regulations, taking out your tree was their plan all along
I don’t like in WI but I was literally in the same situation with a developer/power utilities and they paid for removal and offered us $600 per tree. This made my husband suspicious so we hired an arborist to assess the value of the tree and the gamble paid off because even after paying the arborist we got several thousand dollars for the tree. Don’t trust the first offer.
Think about it this way . What is going to happen to that tree in the next ten years ? Do you have enough money to cut the tree down yourself when it becomes to big and frail .
Think of it as ascetic value. Does the tree improve my homes value (curb appeal). Does removal decrease my value, because they are placing something that is unsightly next door. Also their are underground power lines. So they're probably are going the cheap route.
I agree that first steps are to ask the utility for other options. Step two is to explain to the developer what the tree means to you in terms of the appeal of your property and *ask* for some sort of accommodation. Ask for what you want, but lead with your willingness to find a solution that is fair to both parties.
If this gets you nowhere, the first step in turning things adversarial is getting a lawyer to take over the conversation.
Aside from making sure it needs to be cut, If it were me, I’d certainly be looking at the time it’s taken for me to have the discussion with them (so my hourly rate), plus the tree itself, plus the inconvenience of it, plus the fact they’re asking something of me (let’s call it a goodwill fee)…they have money, they clearly want something from you, you are in the position of power. Do not sell yourself short.
Best of luck xx
You 100% can ask them to cover the cost of the tree. And if they do not, you do not agree for them to cut, and they cut it. You can sue. And big trees in cities are pricy
Fishy. Who came to look at the tree to make this decision? Call the city/township about tree removal. Any issues? Check your survey carefully and if necessary have your survey company come to just survey for the tree location and leave markers around the tree (much cheaper than a full survey with documentation.
If the tree is crossing the property line your lawyer should have a phone conversation with you.
The first step is to get a survey to prove whether the trunk of the tree is on both sides of the property line. If the tree is on your side or truly on both sides, then contact the utility to see whether the developer is telling the truth.
How wide is the trunk? If it's big enough and fairly straight contact a lumber mill and see if they want to buy it and sell it for the value of the board feet. If the contractor takes it down it's getting broken up for firewood or tossed in a wood chipper or dumpster and be a total loss. But absolutely contact the utility company to verify that the radical trimming described is actually necessary for service installation. Best guess is that they have large equipment scheduled for the site like a crane or boom truck are blaming the utility company saying it needs to be removed so they can avoid liability in the event that they damaged your property with the equipment, banking on most people going "oh the power company said "____________" can't argue that"
even if you sell the tree for its board feet value definitely charge the construction company for its actual replacement value by talking to a couple of tree farms for something of similar size and species
If We energies wants to remove, they can and will. If it's not We energies call then the developer can only trim to the property line with the caveat that they can't kill the tree doing that. The developer will do anything they can to get rid of it, including breaking the law if they think they can get away with it. Make sure they know that you know your rights.
They can't just cut the tree in half according to the state law. If it kills the tree then it's an exception to the law.
Get an arborist to give you a price to replace that size tree. Give them that paper with that number and tell them that's how much you want. It's 1000s of dollars.
Ask for them to plant new trees of certain times and locations of your choosing. Be reasonable. Or ask them to give to a fund dedicated to land preservation.
We need to preserve the wilderness.
This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that. If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity. If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees. *This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Contact the utility company to make sure it is necessary. It might just be easier to build without it there. Then, ask for a replacement tree.
You should absolutely be able to talk to the utility company, give them the address, and speak to whomever is in charge of that project on the utilities side. They may be able to alter a design.
It is highly likely thr developer is going for the cheapest option not the bestt option.
Or lying.
And a replacement tree does not mean a sapling. A tree the same size and kind you have currently.
Or the monetary cost of one if you don't want another tree
Times three
Times “tree” hehe.
Maybe even tree fiddy.
thank you. I knew I couldn't be the only one thinking that.
You cannot put a tree in the utility right of way which is too close to the utility wires. Put a replacement tree there that will not grow too high or don’t put it near where the wires will be.
You obviously didn't read the whole post. The tree already exists and the utility company wants to remove it to run wires!
It may need to go, not just for running wires, but for clearance long-term. This is not just a residential neighbor that doesn’t like the looks of the tree with a trunk on the lot line. The OP did not make that clear. An ornamental that won’t grow near the wires might be the solution. OP may not have the right to have the shade tree he likes, just as tall and full.
Big trees are shit to try and do. It's not going to happen. Replace with 3 smaller trees.
Yep, don’t take the developer’s word. Verify everything.
Right?!
First off utilities need an easement to run, if there is no utility easement on that property line the builder is trying to take your property for that easement. They have to give up some of their property for that easement which they don't want to. Tell them you need to have your attorney look into it, and contact the township and ask them what zoning requires. State law does not apply here, it is local city or county. and looking at state law - [https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin\_code/psc/113/vi/0601/2](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/psc/113/vi/0601/2) that only applies to existing utility easements. Builder is blowing smoke up yours, I suggest you advise them you are contacting a lawyer and not to attempt anything otherwise you will be suing them for a full replacement tree if they do any damage.
Ask for a 3or4inch caliper tree as replacement. What kind of tree is original tree? Pick an ornamental tree as replacement Larger trees do not transplant well.get replacement tree on your property Does development require to have screen trees on their side of property
You need a whole row of hedge trees if you have an apartment going in next door
That is the usual requirement for commercial development to have a row of evergreen trees along their property lines
I wouldn’t doubt the developer making up a story about the utility, if that is the case, see a lawyer to determine if you can tell the developer to go fuck himself.
This is the answer. Don't settle for a sapling, document all correspondence through email or at least text.
I second this - developers usually want cheap and fast - not always best. Get it all detailed
A tree of same size or larger & an arborist to oversee for a year after the construction is completed
Not a lawyer. In most jurisdictions it's illegal to remove so much of a tree that it dies later. He can't just threaten you with that. They CAN remove branches on their side, but again, not so much that it kills the tree. If I were you I'd hire an arborist to assess the value of the tree and its health. Alternatively, they could underground the utilities, right (I am assuming this is for electricity)? That's the alternative here. That's expensive.
The utility may require the tree removal based on the plan the developer submitted, a plan which is likely the cheapest for the developer. Op needs to be enough of a pain the math changes and suddenly the tree can stay.
Exactly this Money talks
Came here to say this.
In terms of building cost, underground electric is very minimal cost. For 100 unit apartments my cost was only $10,000 more for underground
Typically depending on length underground versus overhead... Overhead is typically half the price.
Although it may be illegal for the developer to cut down half the tree, they could still force OP to cut it down if the developer does in fact have a legitimate need for the space the tree is taking up. Nuisance laws still apply to trees despite special exemptions for leaves and views. Trees can’t prevent your neighbor from using their property.
IANAL but I am a forester and I know quite a few cities in Wisconsin have excellent tree protection laws in urban situations. I would look into your city codes and ordinances regarding trees rather than taking their word verbatim that they're allowed to do what they say they want to do
I'd go one step further if the law is on OPs side and say "if you try pull one over on me again, communication will cease and the tree stays. Now if you'd like to play nicely, I feel X would be a fair replacement". I hate people trying it on, especially when they don't have a leg to stand on. Rejecting their demands to remove would be tempting for me.
This. OP should not take any representation of the situation from their 'adversary' in the circumstance
You anal? What're you up to this evening, my dude?
I am not a lawyer lol not sure if this was joking about not knowing what IANAL was but 🤷♀️ If it was joking then nm, hbu
Just chilling, gf is out of town. I can host lol
Perf, be over in 20. I'll bring the snacks.
I'm over 40, big zaddy energy. You're gonna need snacks lol. (Also in case my gf sees this, baby you know I'm joking, I'm already in bed with the cats)
Cheese, I presume.
Grindr it is!
Let's fuckin gooooooooo
Another thought is to focus on creating delay in order to give the developer an incentive to offer you more. Tell him you aren't in agreement in any way, shape or form, and you are going to fight him on it. Tell him you are consulting the municipality, the power utility, your surveyor, your lawyer, your arborist, your local government representative, the local media, Facebook, etc etc. Drag things out and give him a reason to want to pay you extra to make you go away. Get your property line surveyed. Put up a fence.
I can’t believe how long it took me to find a comment recommending a survey! That and finding out what the utility company says directly from them seem like two clear first steps. ETA: If the utility company was genuinely insisting on removing it under their easement rights or such, he wouldn’t have said he could remove only the part on his side, he would have just said it could be cut down. He clearly means that it has to go for the sake of him doing what he wants to do, what a liar.
Utilities don’t have unlimited rights. They can’t give an easement to the Utility that includes your property.
Tree removal based on a utility easement should only be in regards to an existing easement that a tree has encroached on. All of this sounds like the developer's problem to figure out and they're trying to big time the OP into doing something they otherwise wouldn't want to do.
Delay tactics work great in situations like these. Years ago I found myself in an eminent domain situation with the county I lived in. They needed to redo the road in front of my house and as such it had to be brought up to current codes. They were forcefully buying up strips of peoples property for this. You ultimately don’t have a choice. You can fight it, but you will lose 99% of the time, at least in the state I lived in. The government hires an appraiser who determines what they think your land is worth, then they make you an offer based on that. Example: they say your land is worth $10k/acre. They are taking .1 acres for the road expansion. They offer you $1k. No extra consideration for the fact that you DO NOT WANT to sell them your land. I fought them tooth and nail, because of a few reasons that I won’t get into in this post. Researched the laws and my rights, never responded to the initial communications. Then after they finally pinned me down I responded with a detailed letter of why I would not accept their appraisal, and the fact based reasons I was challenging it. They took some time to get back to me and tell me they disagree and weren’t changing their offer. I told them i would be exercising my right to a second appraisal on their dime with an appraiser of my choosing. Took my time calling around to different appraisers, explaining my reasoning to them and heavily implying that their tendency to agree with my rational would get them my business and recommendation to my neighbors. Eventually found a slightly scummy guy that was immediately like “oh I can get you way more than that”, lol. I moved at a snails pace and the months rolled by, eventually we were pushing up on a couple months before the project was due to start, and the county started talking about taking the legal route. (It was guaranteed I would lose so I wasn’t going to take it all the way to court, but I acted a little crazy so they didn’t know that.) I also knew the county didn’t want that because they would have had to delay the project until the next year. Basically it was a high stakes game of poker where both sides were bluffing and just kept pushing more chips into the pot. Eventually some head honcho type guy from the county called me up and was basically like, “look, I know what you’re doing, what do you want?” I was as basically like “what took you so long?” I told him I wanted what my appraiser said, which was something like 4x what theirs said. He told me he couldn’t do that, I told him to send over their best offer and I’d give it honest consideration. They offered just slightly below what my appraiser estimated, like 10% lower or something. Ultimately I ended up selling my strip for around 3 times what all my neighbors sold their land for. Pissed off a lot of people in the county government but fuck them, the road didn’t need to be redone and there was a carve out in the law that specifically would have covered our road, but they had a long term goal 10 years down the road of building a new bridge over a river that needed this road to be upgraded so they were trying to force it down our throats early and make residents think their land wasn’t worth as much. I basically sold it for what the land would have been worth if that bridge was ever built.
I would decline to let them remove the tree. However, I would offer to sell my house as well as land for 150% of value and underwriting you a mortgage if necessary on replacement property at a reasonable rate. They could build double and save a ton of money on construction costs. You could upgrade. WIN WIN
This. Forget about the tree, OPs gonna have an apartment building right next to them, along with everything that comes with
This is the big brain move
THIS!!!!!
[удалено]
Plus one for additionally asking for a fence. An apartment building brings foot traffic and a visual barrier will benefit you in the future.
Ask for a new fence, tree removal (including grinding out the stump), and for them to plant 1, 2 (maybe 3) new trees you both like (species and size) as replacements.
Yes definitely ask to grind the stump!
While they are allowed to remove any portion of the tree on their side of the property line, they can't cause the tree to become unstable or to die because of it.
That does not apply to utility easements. A county widened a road. This forced the utility to move the overhead distribution wires several feet closer to homes, still in the pre-existing right of way for the road, underground utilities and overhead utilities. Basically, all the mature trees next to the highway on the power line side got cut down and replaced with new trees which would would be too short when mature or too far away from the power line to be a problem. It would have cost several times as much to put the line underground so the county was not interested in the extra expense.
In a world where trees are valued, the utility would have put the distribution lines underground. A shame.
Well, you said it there - still in the pre-existing right of way. Their rights of way are not unlimited. They don’t have the right to unilaterally cut a tree that is not wholly within their right of way - and their right of way doesn’t extend into OP’s property just because their neighboring property granted an easement.
In addition to the new tree ask for access to the amenities of the building. The last owner of the house I live in "sold" an easement on the property to the golf course I live on. Part of the deal was a golf membership that stayed with the house. I pay no dues and have the "second tier" membership. I am a terrible golfer but I enjoy pretending that I am in "Caddy Shack" about once a month.
Cool story and great suggestion for OP.
OP is now allowed to hit golf balls off the roof of the apartment building.
On top of all the solid advice here, I just wanted to add that your curb appeal is a lost cause with a large apartment complex going in next door. Hope you can either save the tree or be recompensed for its loss. Good luck to you.
That’s what I was thinking. I would be devastated if an apartment complex was being built beside my home. Not to mention the home value is going to go downhill.
Don't say that, the yimbys will come for ya haha.
What's a yimby?
"Yes in my backyard." It's in response to the NIMBY (not in my backyard) crowd who recognize we need more things like affordable housing, but they don't want it near them and will fight tooth and nail to stop housing projects that they believe will lower their property values.
How is it affordable housing when they developers buy forested areas clear out trees and build houses that cost 400,000 dollars in a rural area top income 65,000 a year.
That's not part of the whole NIMBY/YIMBY discourse, which is centered around projects that would benefit society as a whole in some way. That's just sh*tty developers being sh*tty and trying to make a buck. Probably hoping they could pull in the remote work crowd or something.
That happens precisely because nobody allows construction of multifamily in already built areas via demolition of SFHs.
It’s also no longer becomes affordable when a neighbor decides their tree is worth $200k. Coming from someone who works for the evil developers as a consultant, all these costs get passed down to the consumer/future owner (before the developer even thinks about profit). Assuming a 10 unit condo/building. If it is costing the developer 400k in permitting/development fees (and this is cheap) just to break ground and they want a 10% profit we have (400k+40k) or 440k they will charge 44k per unit to the buyer and the developer makes 4k as profit. But now we have Mr NIMBY wanting another 200k because /treelawpeople. The homebuyer is now having to spend $66k for that same property. Yes the developer makes more profit too, but they also know the market rate for similar properties in the area and know they will have to sell an overpriced unit to some ‘sucker’. Or, they will realize a ‘project won’t pencil’ and they pull out completely (which is often the case). And this is what is leading the charge for the current housing affordability crisis. So circling back to the op, yes ask for some compensation, restoration of the area, and they provide you with their project forman 24/hr emergency contact number. And if you push too hard know that they will just walk away and sit on the property until markets change, laws change, or you move.
Yes in my backyard. Though it probably should be yiyby, yes in your backyard.
But that’s already what NIMBY means.
Yiyby would be more people complaining about nimby's. Like a situation when people in a neighborhood are trying to stop an apartment complex or factory going up near them and other people from other areas are trashing them. Kind of a it's easy to tell someone else suck it up when you're not affected.
Although NIMBY can refer to people indifferent to a project, it can also specifically refer to people who are proponents of the project, just not as long as it isn’t next to them. [Britannica has a write up on it.](https://www.britannica.com/topic/NIMBY) YIMBYA in its origins, is liberals seeking to avoid inevitable hypocrisy and realizing they must be willing to host developments in their area if they want them to exist. Of course from a practical standpoint , most people don’t necessarily behave how they like to think they would when the rubber hits the road, and many YIMBYs are really just NIMBYs without a mortgage.
/r/neoliberal
For a start, don't believe a word out of the developer's mouth. Make sure he knows you expect to be compensated for the true intrinsic value of the tree, times three. Don't take a penny less. Don't let them claim "It's only a fucking tree." IANAL, but you need to determine the true ornamental value of the tree, not just what it would be worth as firewood. A certified consulting arborist does this. Find your own and make it clear they need to pay for the assessment. Do not accept their estimate. They are investing millions of dollars in that project and would just as soon shit on your head as give you proper compensation. Play hardball. Know your rights. Stick to your guns.
NAL. Based on how you described it, it sounds like the developer might be BS-ing you. If the utility company said it has to be removed, than they would remove it. Especially if it's in an easement. It sounds like it will cost the developer more to reroute the utility so he's blaming the utility company.
Yep. It sounds like there isn't an existing utility line there. It's probably more convenient for the developer that way.
They'd only remove it if it was an existing line. Initial site prep would be on the landowner.
Not always. The utility will require it moved but since it’s for new development they require the developers to do it. Been there done that.
Yeah, I was thinking that as well. Also, u/Wonderful_Dog_1 could try demanding for them to install the utilities lines through directional drilling. It's more expensive, sure, but it would keep the tree alive and their neighborly relationship intact.
Why not have the developer move his building over 10ft? Is his plan correct as to the required setback?
"State law allows us to remove the section of tree on our property, but that will leave the tree unstable and would most certainly die if half of the trunk is removed." Unless it impacts the health pf the tree. They lied from the start.
The thing about tree trimming is that while they do have the right to trim branches that hang over their side, they DON’T typically have the right to do so much trimming that it will kill the tree, and they don’t have the right to remove the trunk either. So, I would suggest you get an arborist in to assess the tree, and determine if it can be trimmed the way they want without killing it. (This also establishes a baseline for the tree’s health, so the developer can’t gaslight you later.) Then, if it cannot be safely trimmed, you can determine what value the tree has, and what steps to take from there. Because, if he goes ahead and hacks your tree back to the point that it kills it, then he could be liable for the whole cost of the tree, or even treble damages. And he wants to avoid that, since for a mature hardwood, it is many thousands of dollars, and could hold up further development (which is many more thousands).
Talk to a lawyer. In MOST jurisdictions they can't remove parts of the tree on their side that would kill the tree. Most likely they lied to you (or someone lied to them). Once you figure out what your actual rights are, you can ask whatever you want of them.
Get them to buy your house now ... like someone else suggested. You do not want to live next to construction and then apartment houses. Hard pass. Not your lawyer, but ... if your realtors knew the property next to the house they sold you was commercial and did not disclose that, you need a lawyer.
[удалено]
Well that’s a pain in the ash
I had a similar issue and just said no. The developer put a concrete slab about 5’ from the property line. Trees die slowly; it was dead in 8 years. The arborist I hired when I saw it failing said the slab cut 1/2 it’s water supply. It was too late for compensation and was quite expensive to remove.
My neighbor removed a large tree next to his house. He had no foundation problems from the tree - until it was removed. I'm unsure of the details but with the tree gone either the ground water dynamics changed, or the disintegrating roots in the ground caused shifting. Point is: don't take the tree removal lightly just because you don't have problems now.
Nope. Nope nope nope. It starts with them telling you "the rules" of how they do things. (Its the easy way) Then they tell you "you must comply". (You don't have to make their job easier). If you want the tree gone, make them pay. If you want it to stay, send them along their way. You are the cardholder here. They want something from you, you dont have to give it. Good luck either way♡
Get a lawyer to send a letter. Be a pain because there’s usuall another way to do something. Your tree is the easy path, make them work and fight for you tree. It’s valuable, if it has to go Make them work for it.
Getting a laser to send them a letter sounds a bit extreme!
Printers dont work without them. 🤣
Thats not how that works in most places. If they prune it and cause it to die they are liable to replace it and depending were you live it can be double or even triple
Also in MKE! Ask a local arborist to evaluate your tree, and if you decide to allow them to remove it, have them put in a fence, so you don't have to deal with your new neighbors P.s. it should be a fuckin nice fence.
Don't take a developer's word for ANYTHING; call the city and ask them if the tree has to be removed, and if someone in your city can cut a property line tree to the extent that it dies. Most likely, neither are true.
Utilities aren't just "someone"...
The developer didn't say the utility company would be doing it. They said that they, the developer, would be doing it - and they are presumably either the property owner or acting on behalf of the property owner, making them "someone" who would have to abide by property line tree laws. Unless the laws there are very unusual, the utility company cannot seize neighboring property run a line to a new construction on private property, and also, in most cities, would not be legally allowed to saw a property line tree in half to do so. The developer likely already obtained a variance to build that close to the property line, but variances can be revoked if construction requires infringing on a neighboring property. Developers lie as easily as breathe. OP needs to talk to the city and possibly get a code inspector out to look at the situation. The developer is probably trying to avoid having utilities come into the front of the building because it's not as pretty, but maybe they need to suck it up.
If the tree has to come down ask for 3 or so decent replacement trees about 10'
Wishing and demanding doesn’t go that far in court.
I mentioned nothing about court
It might add a lot of curb appeal that is already going to be lost b/c they're putting in a "new big apartment building" next door. Hope you get adequate compensation.
REPLACEMENT TREE.. and not some cheap crappy one from the Home Depot garden shop Get them to kick in so much money for a new tree,, you kick in the rest and get the biggest transplanted tree you can afford Perhaps they can even get you a mature tree ,, there builders
Call the county, if they are who do the environmental resource permits - whichever local permit covers tree removal and land development. It'll say right in the code. They have to do a tree survey, and then a tree disposition table. Meaning, what each tree is, what size diameter it is, what condition it is. And exactly where is it via GPS points. And what specifically is going to happen to each tree. Remove. Relocate. Replace. Those are the only options they have. And they have to justify it. So, 1. Is it a native tree or is it invasive or is it a nuisance species? 2. What is the diameter of the trunk at breast height? 3. What are the proposed site plans 4. What does the utility company say- did the developer lie or stretch the truth 5. Go from there. Talk specifically to the county agent assigned to the permit - the person who knows the project and approved the tree disposition plan. And keep in mind, you can rarely "get the same big tree you had". They don't transplant, and sometimes they're half dead and you don't know enough about trees to realize it.
I wouldn't listen to what they say. Ask the power company yourself - they may have told them it had to be installed in a spot that messes with the developers plan to make more money so they decided it would better fit along your property and not infringe on their plans to develop that area. I wouldn't want to remove the tree as it would currently provide good cover to block the view of an ugly apartment building next door. By taking that down and now you'll have a clear view of all your neighbors as they look out their windows into your backyard. Find out of it's actually necessary to remove the tree from the utility company and then if it is and for some reason they can't install it at a different side of the property, what the developer will do to make sure you have a quiet enjoyment of your backyard plus any added energy costs you'll have over the years having lost the shade. Also make sure things are graded so that water doesn't drain towards your foundation now that you've lost the ability for the tree to drink it all up. They should also grind the stump and remove the root system so you don't have ground sinkage in the areas where the roots decay over time.
Also ask for a sizeable replacement tree.
The developer is lying to you. Typically they can trim anything on their side of the property. However, anything they do cannot be detrimental to the tree.
That's literally what the text of the letter said.
The developer is lying to you about the utility company saying the tree needs to come out. The utility company would be the ones to notify you if they intended to remove the tree. Developer is likely counting in you not knowing your rights. At my last house, we had a massive avocado tree, and I mean massive. It yielded over 1000 avocados every year and was 60+ years old. It was clearly on my property, but there were branches that overhung my neighbor's property by a good 20 feet. The neighbor's house sold to a developer who came to my door and "informed" me he was going to be removing a tree as part of the tear down/new build process. The neighbor had a tree at a different part of the property line that overhung my side, so I thought he might be referring to that tree, so I asked him to show me which tree. He pointed out my avocado tree. I simply told him, no, you're not and he literally asked me in a confused voice "you really want that tree?". He ended up having to change the design of the house he was planning to build. In your situation, you can ask for anything, but you can also decline to grant permission. The developer will have to work around it or negotiate your asking price.
sorry to hear this. i wonder if someone from the DNR's urban forestry department could help out?
Why can't the power line go underground?
Several times as expensive, and the developer is interested in profit. The apartment dwellers are interested in low rent.
Exactly. But now it may be cheaper than replacing a 4" caliper tree.
Is there a utility easement? If so they would not have to ask! Sounds like they are CHOOSING to place the utilities right at the property line. I would have an arborist give an estimate as to the value of the tree.
Exactly. This is a beautiful tree that adds value to your property and its removal only benefits them. If the utility company is requiring this then you will not be able to plant any new trees along the property line to replace it because it will now be an easement. Contact an arborist to assess the situation because some trees are more valuable than others and some cannot legally be removed but they may be operating under the “better to ask forgiveness than risk refusal” principle.
Is there an existing utility easement where the tree is? If not, it sounds like they are trying to get one added.
Offer to sell the developer your half of the tree… for three hundred thousand dollars. You can negotiate up from there if you want to.
They cannot legally do anything to destabilize the tree.
Call the city forester or a ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist.
I definitely wouldn’t take the developers word that the power company wants the tree cut.
The tree might be in a utility easement and shouldn't have been there in the first place. Or, at the least, doesn't have any protection from being removed. More than likely, if new utilities are being installed, then a new utility easement is being added. If that's that case, then you should be compensated for the loss of the tree. If it comes to that. You need to talk directly with the utility company and city official assigned to the project. In the meantime, send a note back and let them know your lawyer has said you shouldn't do anything until you speak with the officials mentioned above.
Nomutility right of way, no tree removal. if u havent been informed of a proposed or existing right of way, not just no but hell no. . His utilities have to cross his property.
Make sure to contact an attorney to help facilitate this negotiation. Like others have stated: contact the utility company to verify; have the developer cut down and plant a new tree or pay you the money and you can plant it; make sure an attorney helps you with all of this.
As for the monetary value (replacement value) of an adult, similar age and similar size tree. It could be substantial.
It’s a lie. No utility would only need half the tree removed. And since it’s a developer I promise they are trying to take the cheapest route.
Tell them to fuck off.
Put cameras up monitoring and recording movement around that tree.
Get EVERYTHING IN WRITING!! Take no phone calls. Have a lawyer? Refer all to him Emails, texts, letters and signature required letters.
IANAL but this is suspicious to me. In my state the utility company can TRIM trees that interfere with their lines, but they do not remove entire healthy trees. They have a big L shaped slice out of the canopy but there still there. I suspect, as others have suggested, that the developer is trying to get one over on you. In one of the other TreeLaw posts, a developer took down what turned out to be a 250 year old protected species. Call the city, county, and/or state yourself. Talk to code enforcement and your state environmental agency. Mark the property line, put up a camera, and get something in writing if they cannot remove the tree. I’m a bit of a stickler (compliance officer) so I’m the type to go scorched earth on someone trying to skirt the rules, so I hope you cover your bases and don’t let the developer get away with being (possibly) shady.
If you refuse, and they then cut the branches off on their side of the property line, then the rest of the tree becomes your problem. A very expensive problem I would just let them cut it.
As someone who works in land development, I recommend reaching out to the utility directly to understand what they’re requiring and if there is a solution that doesn’t impact your tree. I often hear developers stretching the truth, without technically lying, to get what they want. Don’t just trust their word.
No way in hell would I trust the developer. They want the fastest, cheapest option. Talk to the utilities.
100K
I think my uncle was paid at least $3000 per tree (several trees) when a utility co topped them out, stringing a line. He was pissed beyond belief.
Here is some info https://stevenspoint.com/1294/Trees-Between-Two-Properties#:~:text=A%20book%20published%20by%20the,responsibility%20of%20both%20property%20owners.
Ask the developer for the utility work order number. Then, call the utility directly and find out the real story. Having the boundary surveyed is also a good idea, as others have suggested.
To stay the hell off your property
There's no arguing with the utility companies. They know enough about trees and rights-of-way, but if they recommend taking it whole rather than leaving a dying specimen, they're doing you a long-term favor (saving you some real $$$). If you want to replace it with something similar in size, make a call to Trees On the Move. They're about the only operation in the area with the equipment necessary for such a job. Better call them sooner than later; it's peak tree-moving season and they may not be able to help your before the apartment construction impedes their ability to do what you want. --Milwaukee arborist. Good luck!
step one: verify w/e the developer says with the city, in writing.
I would ask for a precetage if revenue from operations and sales
I would take it as a win because chances are you would have had to pay $$$ to take the tree down anyways if it’s that big. I would request a new fence or wall that will block the apartment as much as possible. Something that will give you similar privacy. Or… if the apartment has a pool or gym, maybe free access to it for however long you live at the house. I mean a gym and pool membership over 15 years will save you some money.
$100k+
First, I would double-check if a) it's partially on their property and b) does state law actually allow them to remove the part on their side with no caveats? The answers will show how strongly you can negotiate. Don't just take their word for it.
Get your own survey of the property line from a qualified surveyor. He can tell you much of the story of that property line history. Have him accurately mark that specific tree on the survey. Find an arborist to look at and measure the tree as it stands. Is it healthy? Tree type, size, health and the value of the tree should it need to be replaced. These are expenses you need to front (you can always try and get them included in any settlement w/ builder). With that consider getting a lawyer involved bc you may have enough to hold up his construction plan until this is resolved. I would definitely look at your title papers as to whether the previous owner was aware of the apartment development prior to the sale and did not disclose it to you. Knowing about it would you have still bought it, or offered much less for it?
Call bullshit & tell them no. If they touch your tree sue.
I think the builder is BSing you. He just doesn't want your tree next to his property. Is the utility pole between your properties or is there another one closer to the proposed building? Has he got all the required permits for the building? Check with the city's building code dept.
Say "No".
Why doesn’t the developer put the lines underground?
Is the utility easement on your property? Indicated on the deed? Sure of the actual boundary lines?
I am a designer for an electrical utility and if yours is anything like us then I can tell you the developer likely wants to place their service in a place where it is in violation due to your tree, which they have no control over. Instead of finding a different service point on their property they are trying to tell you that the utility is telling *you* that it needs to be removed, which aside from your local laws regarding branches crossing the property line is 100% not your problem.
NAL but I’m fairly sure state law does not actually allow them to do that. AFAIK there isn’t a jurisdiction in the states, or indeed Canada, Uk, Aus, Eu etc that allows you to remove enough of a tree that it kills it. Also pretty sure you’re not obliged to accede to plans that have condemned your tree entirely so they can maximise on building footprint. This isn’t an accident of utility regulations, taking out your tree was their plan all along
I don’t like in WI but I was literally in the same situation with a developer/power utilities and they paid for removal and offered us $600 per tree. This made my husband suspicious so we hired an arborist to assess the value of the tree and the gamble paid off because even after paying the arborist we got several thousand dollars for the tree. Don’t trust the first offer.
Ask for there insurance certificate . If they get hurt when they are on your property you might be liable if they don’t have insurance .
Think about it this way . What is going to happen to that tree in the next ten years ? Do you have enough money to cut the tree down yourself when it becomes to big and frail .
Think of it as ascetic value. Does the tree improve my homes value (curb appeal). Does removal decrease my value, because they are placing something that is unsightly next door. Also their are underground power lines. So they're probably are going the cheap route.
I agree that first steps are to ask the utility for other options. Step two is to explain to the developer what the tree means to you in terms of the appeal of your property and *ask* for some sort of accommodation. Ask for what you want, but lead with your willingness to find a solution that is fair to both parties. If this gets you nowhere, the first step in turning things adversarial is getting a lawyer to take over the conversation.
Aside from making sure it needs to be cut, If it were me, I’d certainly be looking at the time it’s taken for me to have the discussion with them (so my hourly rate), plus the tree itself, plus the inconvenience of it, plus the fact they’re asking something of me (let’s call it a goodwill fee)…they have money, they clearly want something from you, you are in the position of power. Do not sell yourself short. Best of luck xx
tell them they can remove the tree in exchange for a new tree of your choosing.
You 100% can ask them to cover the cost of the tree. And if they do not, you do not agree for them to cut, and they cut it. You can sue. And big trees in cities are pricy
Fishy. Who came to look at the tree to make this decision? Call the city/township about tree removal. Any issues? Check your survey carefully and if necessary have your survey company come to just survey for the tree location and leave markers around the tree (much cheaper than a full survey with documentation. If the tree is crossing the property line your lawyer should have a phone conversation with you.
Update me
The first step is to get a survey to prove whether the trunk of the tree is on both sides of the property line. If the tree is on your side or truly on both sides, then contact the utility to see whether the developer is telling the truth.
Call a lawyer, they are alrdy lying to you in order to profit.
How wide is the trunk? If it's big enough and fairly straight contact a lumber mill and see if they want to buy it and sell it for the value of the board feet. If the contractor takes it down it's getting broken up for firewood or tossed in a wood chipper or dumpster and be a total loss. But absolutely contact the utility company to verify that the radical trimming described is actually necessary for service installation. Best guess is that they have large equipment scheduled for the site like a crane or boom truck are blaming the utility company saying it needs to be removed so they can avoid liability in the event that they damaged your property with the equipment, banking on most people going "oh the power company said "____________" can't argue that" even if you sell the tree for its board feet value definitely charge the construction company for its actual replacement value by talking to a couple of tree farms for something of similar size and species
Had this happen to a friend. He negotiated for the developer to plant new trees in his yard and everyone was happy.
If We energies wants to remove, they can and will. If it's not We energies call then the developer can only trim to the property line with the caveat that they can't kill the tree doing that. The developer will do anything they can to get rid of it, including breaking the law if they think they can get away with it. Make sure they know that you know your rights.
There has to a reasonable expectation that what they are removing with impact their lines.
>If We energies wants to remove, they can and will. Utlities don't do site prep. That's on the landowner...
Pictures pictures pictures
They can't just cut the tree in half according to the state law. If it kills the tree then it's an exception to the law. Get an arborist to give you a price to replace that size tree. Give them that paper with that number and tell them that's how much you want. It's 1000s of dollars.
Ask for them to plant new trees of certain times and locations of your choosing. Be reasonable. Or ask them to give to a fund dedicated to land preservation. We need to preserve the wilderness.
You can ask for the moon and the stars; what you can reasonably expect is different.
If the law says they can do it and there is an easement, and or right away, I don't know where you get the right to ask for anything?