Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alder Katie Nelson moves to deny homeowner request to remove honey locust; commission cites tree health and precedent
Summary
After a neighbor described hours spent raking beans and bags of pods, the Middleton Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission voted 4–1 to deny a homeowner request to remove a large honey locust (tree no. 16675), citing a 2024 inspection that rated the tree in good condition and concerns about setting a removal precedent.
The Middleton Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission voted to deny a homeowner request to remove tree number 16675, a honey locust on Devonshire Court, after public comment and staff recommendation that the tree does not meet removal criteria.
Neighbor Janet Badney, who lives adjacent to the tree at 1209 Devonshire Court, told the commission she and other residents have repeatedly cleaned up large quantities of pods. "Since we stopped mowing in November, I have bagged 35–40 bags, large leaf bags of them," she said, describing pods being plowed into yards and entering storm sewer inlets. Badney said the pods also interfere with care of valuable oaks on her property and urged the commission to remove the tree; she offered to plant a replacement if the city removed it.
Staff presented an inspection recorded in a staff memo and noted a May 20, 2024 field visit by Kelly Tuttle of Blue Stem Forestry Consultants. The memo lists the tree as 23 inches in diameter (measured at 4½ feet off the ground) and gives it a conditional rating of 80 out of 100 with recommended routine pruning. Staff concluded the tree provides a large canopy benefit and does not meet the city's tree‑health or public‑safety criteria for removal.
During discussion, commissioners asked how many honey locusts are on Devonshire Court and in the city. Staff said there are eight on Devonshire Court but the inventory does not record sex (male vs. female) for trees citywide. Commissioners raised concerns about stormwater and phosphorus from leaf and pod litter and requested that the city consider a broader urban‑forest approach to leaf litter and water‑quality issues.
Alder Katie Nelson moved to deny the removal request. After a second, the commission approved the motion by voice vote; the chair announced four in favor and one opposed, formally denying the homeowners' request to remove the tree.
The commission's action leaves the tree in place and directs staff to continue routine maintenance and explore non‑removal approaches to the debris issue, such as pruning or broader urban‑forest leaf‑litter strategies. The homeowner was told the commission's decision and thanked for attending the meeting; the commission then returned to other agenda items.
