Eureka Springs has the title of Tree City USA but that doesn’t mean all trees are protected on private property.
Ann Sallee, a member of the city’s planning commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment pointed that out during the group’s Oct. 14 meeting.
“So, I am totally in support of having a tree ordinance and [commissioner] Tom [Buford] did a great job [developing it],” Sallee said. “My thing is, that being a tree city is wonderful, but being a tree city has nothing to do with trees on private property.”
Sallee’s comments were in reference to recent comments by members of the public denouncing a decision by BOZA to allow a large tree in a private yard to be cut down after the owner said it was causing damage to the adjacent home. Many of those who spoke said being a Tree City USA city should protect the tree.
“All these people that came in for public comment saying we’re a tree city, and we’re taking down that tree at 20 Armstrong,” she said. “That tree is not part of tree city. I think it’s misleading.
“I don’t think people should have the right to just go cut any tree down they want to. There is a process. But, I think that, I have to honestly tell you, had I known that at the time that we wrote this, I wouldn’t have approved [the ordinance] because I think we’re misleading people.”
Trees on private property aren’t affected by the tree city designation, Sallee said.
“Yes, we’re a tree city,” Sallee said. “What’s a tree city? A tree city is trees on public property that we, the planning commission, have no jurisdiction over.
“… We get blazed because we cut trees down because we’re part of tree city, but I don’t think the public quite understands. My trees have nothing to do with being a tree city, as do yours or yours or yours or yours. But, like I said, I don’t think people should just be able to come in and cut everything down. With the price of cutting trees today, I can’t see anybody taking a tree down that doesn’t need to come down.”
Other commissioners didn’t respond to Sallee’s comments, with much of the discussion centered around making sure property owners planning to build submit plans at the same time of submitting tree cut applications.
Cassie Dishman, the city’s director of planning, told commissioners that there was a mix-up during a recent tree cut approval for a new bid regarding building plans and no tree cut permit will be issued for that property until plans are submitted.
The other talk involved the commission’s discretion when deciding if someone who cuts down a tree or trees has to replace them with new trees.
“I think it comes down to subjective and objective elements of the ordinances, and you can’t define everything, right?” commissioner David Buttecali said.
Buford reminded commissioners that BOZA usually only gets involved if a tree is more than 50 years of age, 36 inches in diameter, or someone is cutting down more than 10 trees.
“So, as regard to replacement trees, we had to kind of walk the fine line of trying to go from one extreme to the other,” Buford said. “And we left in there the replacement tree was up to BOZA because if we made it too strict, we’re worried we wouldn’t get passed through city council. So, that was probably a balancing act.”
TREE REMOVALS APPROVED
BOZA did approve another pair of tree removals.
The board approved the removal of two trees at 2 Ridgeway. One of those trees is dying, and the other is damaging the home, commissioners were told.
The removals were approved 5-0-1 with Buford abstaining.
Also approved was the removal of three trees at 110 Wall Street, again by a 5-0-1 vote with Buford again abstaining.
OTHER PLANNING ITEMS
Commissioners discussed the recent joint workshop with members of the city council regarding a vision plan for the city.
Sallee requested commissioners go through past vision plans and also come up with ideas — along with potential costs — to discuss at a planning workshop now set for 5 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 13, just before next month’s regular meeting.
Commissioners also approved sending a proposed ordinances establishing regulations for fences and metal buildings to the city council for approval.
Commissioner Michael Welch voted against the proposed fence ordinance, saying he didn’t feel the city should be able to tell property owners who live outside of the historic district how and where to build fences.
“I have concerns about property rights,” Welch said. “Regulating fencing on private property encroaches upon the rights of the homeowners to make decisions about their own land. Fences serve various purposes, including privacy, security and aesthetic preferences. Imposing uniform requirements could restrict homeowners’ abilities to address their individual needs and preferences, undermining the principle of property autonomy. The impact on our community’s diversity, one of the strengths of our city is the diversity of its neighborhoods and homes. Mandating specific fencing standards may lead to a loss of character and the uniqueness that distinguishes different areas of Eureka Springs.”
Buttecali appreciated Welch’s concern for property owners’ rights, but pointed out that the proposed ordinance would only apply to individuals who are building new construction or replacing 50 percent or more of existing fence, not current fences.
“Look, Mike, nobody that you will ever meet is more of a property rights proponent than me and I’m very sensitive to that, and I’m listening to your objection, for sure,” Buttecali said. “I think if you probably took a poll, you’d find that this is a split issue. Some people feel that it could be a valuable component to protecting long-term values in the community. Other people say: ‘Well, this is way too intrusive.’ In this particular case, I’m just going to weigh it a little bit to the fencing ordinance, and here’s the reason why, is that it wouldn’t take very long for this situation to get out of control before it’s an eyesore. One of the things that we’re trying to do is protect the integrity, the visual.”
Commissioners also discussed vacant buildings in the city, with building inspector Paul Sutherland stressing the difference between a place that is vacant versus a nuisance and his priority on structures that are in violation.
