RECENT COMMENTS
perhaps the Urban Forestry Division should consider a new name
North Richmond News has the skinny on a piece of legislation proposed by the Urban Forestry Division of the City of Richmond that is heading to the city’s planning commission on Monday, Oct.20, at 1:30PM. The ordinance states that:
- No tree shall be planted at least 25 feet from street intersections and at least 10 feet from alleys.
- No tree shall be planted closer than 10 feet to a utility pole.
Information received about the impact of this ordinance on the Fan District should be of interest to all city property owners. According to Fan resident Calder Loth, the Fan District has 359 tree wells that are within 10 feet of an alley, of which currently 83 of these tree wells are empty and could not be filled. If this ordinance is passed, the 276 existing trees will not be replanted if they die. The Fan has 125 intersections, each has the potential for 8 trees each. That’s one thousand trees around intersections in the Fan that would thus be banned.
The meeting is open to the public.
TAGGED: trees
would this be required for trees planted on personal property, as well?
wouldn’t this also be in opposition to the Downtown Master Plan’s cityscaping, as well? we should be rallying for more trees, not less. this proposed legislation is quite disappointing.
This sounds similar to the Commonwealth’s no parking within 25 feet of an intersection rule (which seems lazily enforced in Richmond). This improves visibility and safety at intersections while reducing the maintenance requirements for trees that would interfere with utility lines.
I think it would be a bit odd to assume that the legislation is against trees for tree’s sake. It prevents builders from installing trees that then become the burden of the city to maintain.
The source for the NRN post may have some of the details wrong. A person close to Urban Forestry says that:
Can anyone describe with more detail than that what is actually going on?
“NO MORE TREES! Not now, NOT EVER.” I think this is the city policy.
This crazy ordinance doesn’t surprise me considering how friggn’ difficult is was to get an answer out of City Hall on the extension of the Adopt-a-Tree program.
I’m convinced that the Urban Forestry Dept is about as important to City Hall as the Farmers Market–not very. In fact, they wish it would just go-the-f___-away.
No one down at 900 E. Broad really gives a shit about trees, local farmers…nor the taxpayers who value those entities.
Trees provide a sense of enclosure and comfort as well as much needed shade. A stroll down Hanover Ave in the Fan is infinitely more pleasurable than walking along Main St. through Monroe Ward. I wonder; Do the people creating these laws actually live in the city??
Is the wording on the ordinance correct as quoted? It appears to state the opposite of what is intended.
According to city arborist, historic neighborhoods like Church Hill and Fan etc. are safe, as they are grandfathered. The trees there now are OK and they are not cutting down healthy trees to fit the above criteria.
Our city arborist is working with the community to save and preserve the trees where and when possible.
If you want more info or have questions join/become a Tree Stewart Program for the fall 2008, and attend trainings on trees, tree health and preservation of the urban forest and/or call or arborist: Norm Brown 646-6785.
Additionally, you can contact or join Church Hill Planter’s at 644-1347, to get involved and get the most updated and accurate info.
JJ
The ordinance has been on the books since 1992. Whoever posted this is coming up to pass is flat wrong. It is coming up to be reviewed and discussed. The ordinance only says they won’t be replaced if they die or taken out in a wreck.