RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
Stump removal planned for Friday
01/12/2017 5:12 PM by John M
Chris sends in word that the “stump” left behind after the late November removal of the giant tree on 22nd Street is slated for removal tomorrow.
— ∮∮∮ —
Why was this removed in the first place?
Looking at the growth rings, something major happened that caused that dark one that looks like around 20 years ago or so? Hard to tell in this photo.
The developer who bought the these two lots submitted plans to CAR that required the removal of the tree. CAR approved the design conditionally and said that the tree was historically significant (i.e. 100 y/o or older) and should be preserved by all means necessary. The developer pulled their application and then promptly cut down the tree. CAR was alerted but couldn’t take action as the application was pulled. The developer reapplied to CAR and was approved at the December meeting.
Disrespectful, dishonest, and greedy.
Where are the plan links to see what they propose?
.
Yes, very dishonest and as you said, disrespectful concerning history. Outside of the CAR, couldn’t have the City Arborist have stepped in when someone saw them starting cutting it down?
.
I am surprised the CAR approved the new submission of plans under the circumstances.
Apologies they did not get approved at the last CAR meeting and will be presenting plans again on 01/24. John just posted several of the concepts in another article; there’s is the 2112 East Clay development. Here’s a link to a more detailed version: https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2896520&GUID=DA0385FB-01A4-484E-B532-90ED1EEE7EAC&Options=&Search=
playing dirty like that should mean an automatic NO to any development proposed by that developer on that property. Sadly this is how jerks get ahead.
@5 Liz Opalak, this is what’s confusing. I looked at the plans and the CAR Report from March and April which stated as you mentioned, that the City Arborists wanted the tree protected and there was mention about page 73 of the Guidelines about how mature tree contribute.
.
Then, the current Report given December 13, said that the “previous owner” took the tree down. But, the current plans were submitted to the CAR by the current owner on November 21 and the tree was cut half way down on the weekend of November 26-27. I would think that it would have been the “current” owner who cut it down and that should be taken into consideration with their decision.
.
To be fair, I do like the building design and can see how the tree would interfere with the footprint and the Arborist mentioned how it would not be good for the tree with construction happening directly under it. So… We can only hope they can incorporate some sort of tree planting in their plan.
.