I don't know the details on this particular tree (why it was selected as a landmark tree), but the community needs to be aware that there is more to history than buildings and people. There are many historic treasures that are not obvious at first look -- such as trees, landscapes, etc. The neighborhood where this tree is located has already seen the destruction of its circa 1920s elementary school (Woodward) for new houses and the trees there are and have been for decades an important visual reminder of our town's history. New construction can be a wonderful addition to neighborhoods and our community, but not when it's detrimental to the visual historic landscape and the history of surrounding neighborhoods. To say that this tree will "likely die" due to the home's construction is a weak argument and one often used to sway opinion in the builder's favor. Hopefully, a compromise can be reached. For more on another local landmark tree, see: http://oaklandtownship.patch.com/articles/treasured-township-oak-tree-may-predate-the-mayflower-expedition. These sorts of historic treasures are getting more and more difficult to preserve.

I believe it was Smith Builders that built the house right around the corner and preserved a stand of large trees. He was able to work the design to protect the trees. The home has a basement, and he kept that house with the same set back as the others and did a right nice job on the design. I think if the architectural plans could be re-worked, the tree can certainly be protected and saved. It will continue to add to the ambience and increased property values of not only that property, but the neighborhood as well. Preservation and historical significance is not just bricks and mortar, it is living specimens as well.

It is not the Bebb Oak on Livernois south of Hamlin that has taken decades to reach it's current form...it is a spruce. It isn't much bigger than 3 in my yard that were planted in the last 20 years. It is also a type of tree that will turn roots up with a good strong windstorm, especially standing alone on an otherwise vacant lot. It is very easy to dictate what can be done with land long after someone has purchased it. My solution...if the builder cannot be granted to construct a home similar to those in the immediate area, then the city should purchase the lot from him at market value and make the lot a neighborhood park. Seems only fair.

At Council last night the decision was made to preserve tree #357. This is a significant step to better protecting and preserving our green canopy & historical or landmark trees in Rochester. The ordinance has been on the books. A house can still be built on the property with ease without a problem. It is just a matter of allowing for the tree to remain on the corner of the front yard. It can be done. The builder can still make a profit and the neighborhood and that parcel can still benefit from increased property value because of tree #357. The tree has been there a long long time,
longer than any of those houses & well before the builder made the decision to purchase the lot. None of the houses are the same in that area, including a previous house that is out of character & newly built on Woodward. The tree has deep roots takes the winds well and the branches droop with heavy snow & water.

This is an 80 foot tree. This is not a "20" year old spruce. That Bebb Oak on Livernois is not decades old it is over 200 years old.

The only person real authority to do much of anything with City owned trees is the City Manager who is not a certified arborist. Ditto the City Manager before the current one. The deck chairs on the Titanic really need to be rearranged.