Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Tree Removal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows removal of large water oak at 1129 Glassy Ibis Drive with full mitigation
Summary
The Conway Tree Board agreed the staff denial was correct but voted to permit removal of an 87‑inch water oak at 1129 Glassy Ibis Drive provided the owner pays full mitigation or plants the required replacements; staff will verify the tree circumference before final mitigation calculation.
The Conway Tree Board agreed to allow removal of a large water oak at 1129 Glassy Ibis Drive, but required the owner to meet full mitigation under the city’s tree preservation ordinance and directed staff to confirm the tree’s exact circumference before computing mitigation.
City staff presented the appeal and said a certified arborist’s letter described the tree as an “87 inch water oak in good health,” and that staff’s inspection found roots extending under a recently poured concrete patio but no structural damage to the home. Under “section 9 8 10 subsection a of the UNEO,” staff denied the removal and the property owners appealed.
The property owners (the Gorlaskans) provided photos and said roots extended under a 13‑inch concrete pad and that the tree is about 19 feet from the house. They argued the tree poses a future structural risk to the home and patios. The owners sought a reduction in mitigation if removal were approved.
Board members discussed measurement methods and mitigation calculations. Staff said the arborist’s 87‑inch figure appears to reference diameter rather than DBH and that staff would need to remeasure. Using a working DBH example of 28 inches, staff said mitigation would equal replanting seven 4‑inch caliper trees or, as an alternative, a fee in lieu of approximately $5,950 (staff also provided a straight calculation of $18,700 if full replacement plantings were required and priced differently in packet examples).
A board member moved to agree that staff’s initial interpretation and denial were correct, but to allow removal because the species (water oak) and property circumstances justified board discretion. The board required full mitigation with no reduction and asked staff to remeasure the tree’s DBH before finalizing mitigation calculations. The motion passed by voice vote.
Staff told the owners mitigation could be a combination of on‑site plantings and a fee in lieu; board members encouraged owners to consider property space and the cost trade‑offs of planting large caliper trees versus paying a fee. If the final measurement produces a DBH lower than assumed, mitigation will be adjusted accordingly.
