Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say developer clear-cut promised tree buffer at Kimblewick; city says PUD shows no violation
Summary
Multiple Westfield residents told the council that Pulte cleared a 200-foot tree preservation area on Kimblewick Phase 3 land, removing a promised buffer; city staff said inspections found the work aligned with the approved PUD and said Pulte might consider reopening planting options where county drainage rules allow.
Several residents told the Westfield City Council that the developer Pulte has clear-cut a promised tree preservation buffer along the west side of the Kimblewick Phase 3 expansion, eroding a barrier neighbors said was meant to protect privacy and reduce noise.
Resident Vernon Poland, who said he provided photographic evidence to the council, said the development’s revised plan had called for a 200-foot tree preservation area and that trees in that buffer were removed while ponds were installed. "Why call it a tree preservation area if we're not gonna preserve the trees?" Poland asked the council during the public-comment period, adding that replacement plantings shown at earlier hearings would not create an effective barrier.
Bill Koss, another nearby property owner, said he and other neighbors were surprised when the buffer area was clear-cut and said he had been told that replacement trees would be planted but that recent construction removed the trees without a clear plan for large replacements. Koss said Pulte had promised a $1,000,000 amenity center and a 150-foot buffer for Kimblewick in earlier meetings and argued that the current work defeats the purpose of a preservation zone.
City staff responded that inspectors from the Community Development Department and staff (including Chris McConnell) visited the site. "What we're finding is that it aligns with the PUD. We're not seeing any violations," the mayor told the meeting, and staff said they had discussed the area with Pulte and would ask whether additional plantings could be added once the retention pond work is complete. Staff cautioned, however, that the pond area is a county drainage line and that the city may be limited in what it can plant or place in that area.
Council members asked technical questions about why trees adjacent to ponds were removed; a resident and staff said the ponds occupy necessary retainage areas but that there appeared to be remaining green space that neighbors believe should not have been disturbed. City staff encouraged residents to report concerns directly so the city can follow up with inspections and with the county on drainage-line restrictions.
The council did not take formal enforcement action at the meeting; staff said they would continue to investigate and follow up with residents and the county to clarify whether additional plantings are practical and permissible.
The city manager asked residents who supplied photographs and handouts to provide them to staff for review; the matter may be revisited once staff and the county confirm the engineering and jurisdictional limits of the drainage area.
