Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delafield council refers 805 Wall Street conditional-use violation after developer removes century-old beech tree
Summary
The council referred a conditional-use violation for the 805 Wall Street condominium project to the planning commission after a developer removed a 75–100-year-old European beech that a required tree-preservation plan had slated for protection.
The Delafield Common Council on Oct. 6 voted to refer an apparent violation of the conditional-use agreement for the 805 Wall Street condominium project to the planning commission after the site’s mature beech tree was removed during early construction.
The conditional-use permit required compliance with a certified arborist’s tree-preservation plan, including protection for a roughly 75–100-year-old tricolor beech on the property. City staff reported that protective fencing and arborist supervision required by the plan were not implemented and that the tree was removed on one of the first days of construction.
Joanne Janetti Tipple, author of a letter read at the meeting by Mary Daniel, described the tree in the letter: “When I arrived at my studio on the morning of September 19 and saw the remains of the beech tree on a pile of debris, my heart sank. I cannot begin to tell you how sad and mad I was. This beautiful 75 to a 100 year old tricolor beech tree is gone.” The letter was read by Mary Daniel during citizens’ comments.
City staff told the council the developer cannot comply with the condition requiring preservation because the tree is gone, and recommended referring the matter to the planning commission for a public hearing. The planning commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing in November; staff said council could act on an amended conditional use or termination in the first December meeting.
Tyler Foster, representing Wear Design, addressed the council and said the developer did not gain a construction advantage from removing the tree. “I just wanted to address that … it did not serve us any construction benefit taking that tree down,” he said. Foster offered to work on remedial planting or other reparations and said beech species may not thrive in the local climate; he proposed alternate plantings.
Council members expressed strong concern and frustration over the removal. Council moved, seconded and passed a referral to the planning commission with direction to consider an amended conditional use that includes reparations; the council did not pull the building permit at the meeting. Several council members said they preferred remediation and significant consequences rather than simply leaving a disturbed site.
Clarifying details discussed at the meeting included the tree’s diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 17 inches, an estimated height of about 50 feet, and the development’s size (six condominium units). Staff said they had contacted a certified arborist to appraise the value of the mature beech for potential monetary damages.
Next steps: the council referred the matter to the planning commission for a public hearing in November; staff will present recommendations for an amended conditional use (possible remedial planting, monetary contribution, or other conditions) for the planning commission’s recommendation back to council, with potential council action in December.
