Image default
East End News

Stump removal planned for Friday

Related posts

You all ready for some yoga?

Gustavo

Union Hill, Richmond Airport, & GRTC

Jacob C.

What’s Happening at Patrick Henry Park?

Church Hill People's News
avatar
7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
animal loverLiz OpalakEric S. Huffstutler Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

Why was this removed in the first place?

Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

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.

Liz Opalak
Guest
Liz Opalak

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.

Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

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.

Liz Opalak
Guest
Liz Opalak

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=

animal lover
Guest
animal lover

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.

Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

@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… Read more »