I agree with Ken, another two bite the dust! LOL Seriously, it will be something of a shock when the trees are removed, but it is for the best. This is a case where it is better to have NO hair. I had 2 large Norway maples removed last November, and it took awhile to get used to the gaps that were left behind. But now I am thrilled. I am planting gardens and shrub borders instead! On the surface, these can be attractive trees, and they may work well in a contained urban setting. However, here in suburban/rural Northeast US, they are a scourge. I could go on and on about how horrible they are. But to summarize - - They are extremely invasive, and on the Prohibited plant list in Massachusetts. They make a million samaras and the seedlings sprout everywhere, and well beyond the boundaries of one's yard. They are one of the only species that can invade a mature forest. - Their canopies are extremely dense and aggressive, and cast a deep shade. The canopy spreads out wide and dominates its site, crowding out the canopies of neighboring trees (which can eventually die as the Norway grows bigger). When a Norway is removed, it is like "Let there be light". - Like other Maples, their roots grow near the surface and are very thirsty. They are also alleolopathic, which means they produce a toxin that prohibits the growth of other plants. Between this and the deep shade created by the canopy, it is very difficult to grow anything under a Norway maple. I have one remaining Norway maple which is GINORMOUS! The Vinca minor is the only thing growing happily under that one. I have been eyeballing it for removal.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. After reading people's comments and talking with my wife we have decided to leave it this year and address the issue within the next two springs or falls- maybe cut it down next summer and wait to replace it. The picture I took of this tree faces north. To the south of the tree is a red maple, very young about 2" diameter. This is about 35-45 feet from the Norway. To the NE of the Norway we plan to plant a Swamp White Oak (again, 35-45 feet away) next spring. I imagine the canopy on the maple and oak will get quite big eventually (15-25 years, but still) and we don't want it to look like a giant shade blanket is cast over 1/2 of our yard. We've decided to replace the Norway with a smaller tree- perhaps an American Hornbeam. With a smaller tree in between I think that balances things out nicely, and the Hornbeam is a natural tree to the area If we keep the maple, yes, I won't have to deal with shade or root issues for 20 years or so. But I or whoever is living here will have to eventually, and that's a headache that I just don't want to deal with. Why not plan ahead. What boggles my mind is the previous owners literally planted it 7' from the corner of the home in the flower bed. What on earth were they thinking? We are also moving a crabapple tree next year from opposite end flower bed (again 7' from the house) and extending the flower bed and putting a dogwood tree in. Not sure what to do with the crabapple. I think it is a Donald Wyman, but I can't be sure. I may relocate that to the edge of my property so I can still enjoy the flowers but not have to worry about the fruit.

The way I understand the article, the benefit of adding the chopped leaves to the lawn is primarily that of a fertilizer, making the grass grow more thickly (which I definitely have seen to be true) which then reduces the chance of any type of weed seeds germinating. In one area in the backyard of our previous home, I routinely would rake all the leaves (a mix of sugar and red maple and several oak species) into a windrow and then take the mower over them several times to chop them for the compost pile or mulch. The finest bits were cornflake-sized and were left behind to decay in the grass when I raked the larger bits into the compost. After a couple years of this, that patch of grass was noticeably thicker and greener than the surrounding area. I do not think that the article is saying that a phytotoxin in maple leaves is preventing the dandelions from growing. A healthy lawn, properly maintained, minimizes weed growth in general. The article also pointed out that in a previous study, it had not been determined whether or not there may have been herbicide residue present that could have skewed the results. The article states: "The high application rate, regardless of tree genus or species, resulted in the highest green-up ratings. Common dandelion plant counts after one (2003) and two (2003 and 2004) mulch applications at the high rate showed that up to 80% and 53% reduction was achieved, respectively. Results indicate that mulching leaves regardless of genus (oak or maple) or maple species into established turfgrass as a leaf litter disposal method will increase spring green-up and contribute to a reduction in common dandelion population." [Emphasis mine.]

how do you plan to get up there ... hire someone with a bucket truck NEVER leave dead stuff hanging .. IF you can get to it ... ken