Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry And Development Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision after heated debate over failed tree relocations in Madera PUD; asks for more documentation
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board continued a proposed amendment to the Madera PUD after arborists and residents showed that five large live oaks prepped for relocation were uprooted or damaged by storms following earlier root‑pruning. Board members demanded fuller documentation and historical record review before acting.
The Planning and Zoning Board on March 4 declined to approve the developer’s requested modification to the Madera Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would formalize changes tied to five large trees that had been slated for relocation. After extended testimony from an arborist and the landowner, the board continued the item to the board’s April 1 meeting and asked staff and the applicant to produce further documentation.
Arborist Mark White told the board the five trees at issue had been intentionally root‑pruned and prepared for relocation during the previous developer’s work. He said three trees had been uprooted and one had partially failed; the fifth remained standing but had a compromised root system. “Trees A through C have been uprooted,” White reported, and his written assessment concluded that the pre‑relocation root work left the trees unstable and susceptible to the subsequent storms.
The current owner, Toll Brothers, represented by Justin Scarberry, said the company purchased the parcel after the pruning and subsequent storm damage took place and that Toll Brothers had no intent to lose the trees. Scarberry told the board the firm has overplanted and offered to plant larger specimen oaks during build‑out but that it was not responsible for the earlier work.
Board members reacted strongly. Several said they viewed the root pruning and subsequent loss of large live oaks as a serious departure from what had been represented during earlier PUD approvals, and asked staff to review the original PUD record, the timing of the pruning and storm events, and any permit or code‑enforcement records. “These trees were murdered,” a board member said during the discussion, adding the board needs a clearer record of why the relocation attempt failed and who undertook the root pruning prior to approving any PUD amendment. Several commissioners asked staff to examine recorded documents and the timeline and to provide a report on whether the current owner assumed responsibility for any PUD commitments when it bought the land.
Because board members said they needed more time to review the chain of custody on the trees and the PUD commitments tied to them, the board continued the PUD modification to the April 1 meeting and asked the applicant to provide more documentation, including a chronology of events, any contracts with tree‑relocation firms, and contact information for contractors and the arborist who performed the root work.
The board also declined to waive the second public hearing and said the item should be returned for a formal second hearing after the requested materials and staff analysis are complete.
