Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents dispute town plan to remove eucalyptus trees in College Park Country Estates; council hears appeals
Summary
Residents said the town seeks to remove eight red gum eucalyptus trees in College Park Country Estates and residents disputed the town's safety rationale, citing plat, easement and an arborist report; they asked council to halt removal and honor earlier maintenance commitments.
Residents of the College Park Country Estates subdivision addressed the council to object to a town plan to remove eight red gum (eucalyptus) trees from rights‑of‑way in their neighborhood. Speakers said the trees were planted in 1975, predate the town’s land‑development code, and have been maintained by the town for decades through an earlier understanding reflected in plat and easement documents.
Rae Ann Wood and Brendan Wood said they had reviewed town communications and public records and concluded the town’s statements were inconsistent. They cited a covenant letter stating the town owns and maintains the 60‑foot Riata Street and 50‑foot Country Plaza rights‑of‑way, and that the town would remove trees only if they pose an "immediate hazard to the health and safety of the public." Brendan Wood said the town’s public explanation also referenced the Land Development Code and suggested the code applies only to new subdivisions; residents argued that the code language cited by staff requires planting and maintenance of trees along collector and local streets and that the town is selectively enforcing rules against their neighborhood.
Residents asked council to halt any removal actions and to follow the approved plat and easement agreement; they also asked the council to explain why the town has not consistently enforced the same rules elsewhere. "You are talking out both sides of your mouth," one speaker told the council, adding that town materials have omitted relevant documents and selectively presented details that support the town’s position.
Staff and town attorneys discussed a covenant letter and the town’s position in earlier briefings, but no formal town action to remove the trees was recorded at the March 25 meeting. Residents said the town has already marked trees for removal and asked the council to stop the work and provide a transparent, document‑based explanation of authority and maintenance responsibilities.
Ending: The council heard residents’ appeals and did not vote on tree removal at the meeting. Residents asked the council to review the subdivision’s approved plat, easement agreement, and the town’s communications and to ensure consistent application of the land‑development code.
