Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway tree board tables request to remove a 29-inch magnolia at 1501 Ninth Avenue pending recommended tomography test
Summary
The City of Conway Tree Board tabled an appeal to remove a 29-inch southern magnolia at 1501 Ninth Avenue and requested the applicant provide further arborist evidence, including the Pyxis sonographic tomography recommended in the arborist's report.
The City of Conway Tree Board on a split-agenda session voted to table an appeal seeking removal of a 29-inch southern magnolia at 1501 Ninth Avenue until the applicant provides further arborist evidence, specifically the sonographic tomography test the arborist recommended.
City staff said it inspected the tree after a July 9 removal request and determined the magnolia was 29 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), in good health at inspection and protected under the city's tree rules; staff denied the removal and the applicant appealed. Staff told the board the applicant also asked to reduce mitigation requirements if removal were granted.
The applicant's representative, Linda Kredick, reading a statement on behalf of Dr. Paul (clinic owner), said branches have fallen in recent storms, that one branch struck a neighboring dwelling's gutter and deck, and that medical staff and patients could be at risk if a large failure occurred. The applicant submitted an arborist's report from Andrew Bolger, who identified two co-dominant stems with an included bark union and reported a large hollow cavity detected by a mallet test and recommended further evaluation with a Pyxis sonographic tomography machine; Bolger recommended removal given the tree's presence within the clinic's drop zone.
Board members asked whether the tomography had been performed; the applicant said it had not. Multiple board members said they wanted additional, demonstrable evidence of decline before granting removal. The board moved to table the appeal until the applicant obtains further documentation from the arborist, such as the recommended sonographic tomography, and the motion carried.
Staff also reminded the board that in July 2024 the same property had an approved removal of a 36-inch live oak with a mitigation requirement (nine canopy trees) that was not planted before the permit expired; staff said a penalty was assessed that equates to 36 trees for that prior removal. The applicant raised the question of whether mitigation deadlines could be extended; staff said permit records show the earlier mitigation permit expired in January and that any extension or remedy would be up to the tree board to decide.
