Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway Tree Board allows removal of one oak at 1100 Naomi Avenue, requires six-tree mitigation or fee
Summary
The Conway Tree Board granted the applicant’s appeal in part, permitting removal of a 24-inch southern red oak at 1100 Naomi Avenue while denying removal of two other protected oaks. The board required mitigation of six 4-inch caliper trees or a fee-in-lieu of $850 per tree ($5,100 total) and allowed combinations of planting and fee.
The Conway Tree Board voted to allow the removal of a 24-inch southern red oak at 1100 Naomi Avenue while requiring mitigation; two other protected oaks on the same property were ordered to remain.
Katie, a city staff member, told the board staff had inspected the property after an April 15 request and found three protected oaks in good health: a 44-inch white oak, a 22-inch water oak, and a 24-inch southern red oak. Katie said staff “did not find any raised roots or root bases, for the trees indicating a hazard at the time of inspection,” and that, under the unified development ordinance, staff initially denied removal of the protected trees. Katie said staff discussed pruning with the applicant as a less invasive option and that pruning might allow one tree to “self-correct.”
The applicant, who identified herself as Jenny Murph, said she was concerned about the trees’ proximity and leaning toward the house; a friend who was present, identifying himself as Merciful, spoke for the applicant. Board members discussed each tree individually and indicated a preference that removal be a last resort. After deliberation the board made a single motion to authorize only the removal of the 24-inch southern red oak (described in staff materials as the tree nearest the house) and to leave the 44-inch white oak and the 22-inch water oak in place. The motion passed on a recorded voice vote.
For mitigation the board confirmed the city’s standard requirement for a tree of that size: plant six canopy trees at a minimum 4-inch caliper or pay a fee-in-lieu calculated at $850 per unplanted tree. Katie told the board that planting all six trees would cost the city $5,100 if done by the city (the fee-in-lieu figure) and that the board may allow a blend of planting and fee payments (for example, plant three and pay for three). The board voted not to reduce the mitigation requirement and approved allowing a mix of planting on the applicant’s property and fee payments. The applicant may submit a site plan showing the proposed mitigation locations; staff noted planted trees must come from the city’s approved canopy/species list (Article 9 of the landscape and buffer/tree preservation ordinance) or the protected species list in the tree preservation ordinance.
Staff also advised that pruning does not require board approval for non-live-oak trees and that any pruning should be performed by a licensed and insured company following proper arboricultural practices. Katie noted that once the other trees that had been removed from the lot are gone, the remaining trees may have room to “self-correct” because of increased sunlight; several board members agreed that pruning could be attempted for the two trees the board allowed to remain.
