Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Trees Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village board denies request for village removal of street tree at 1445 Apache; homeowner may remove at own cost
Summary
The Village of Ashwaubenon board denied a homeowner's request that the village remove a silver maple in the public right-of-way at 1445 Apache, authorizing the homeowner to remove and replace the tree at her own expense while noting village precedent for stump grinding and replanting; staff had inspected the tree and found no imminent hazard.
The Village of Ashwaubenon board voted to deny a homeowner's request that the village remove a street tree at 1445 Apache and instead authorized the homeowner to remove and replace the tree at her own expense, with the village handling stump grinding and restoration per past practice.
The decision followed an informational review by parks staff and a discussion about risks, policy and precedent. Speaker 2, a parks, recreation and forestry staff member, said the department had met with the homeowner, Ms. Becker, and inspected two silver maple trees and "based upon the policy that we have in place, you know, I would recommend not removing it." Staff reported no obvious signs that the east tree posed an imminent liability. The trees were estimated to be roughly 50 to 60 years old and about 60 feet tall.
Board members discussed the homeowner's claim that tree roots had damaged a sump pump line and caused repeated basement flooding. Participants noted older lateral materials and joint displacement can contribute to failures and suggested televising the lateral to confirm damage; staff said they had not confirmed a root-caused failure during their inspection. Speaker 6, identified in the transcript as legal counsel, warned that the other tree nearer the driveway could not be discussed because "there was a claim filed against the village based on that tree" that is under insurance review and possibly mediation.
Facing those facts, Speaker 1 moved to "deny it and let her take it down at her expense and replace it." The motion, as recorded in the transcript, passed after voice vote; the record includes members voicing support and at least one member voicing opposition. The transcript does not include a named roll-call tally.
Under board discussion and precedent cited by staff, options for handling similar requests include: denying removal and leaving the tree in place; authorizing the property owner to remove a tree and replace it at their expense; or, in limited cases, having the village remove a tree and direct replanting. Staff said that in prior cases residents paid for removal while the village performed stump grinding and restoration.
The board also accepted department reports earlier in the meeting as informational. The meeting adjourned after the tree motion and vote.
What happens next: the homeowner is authorized to remove and replace the tree at her expense, subject to any administrative steps the village requires for replacement and restoration; the other tree with an active insurance claim will not be discussed publicly while the claim is pending.
