A Tree Stays in Rochester, Despite Pleas From Builder, Neighbor

An 80-foot-tall spruce tree on an empty lot at the corner of Ferndale and Oak streets in Rochester will stay after city leaders denied a builder's request to remove it this week.

The tree's removal hinged on a three-year-old city ordinance designed to protect such "landmark" trees, which are historic trees that meet certain criteria in size, age and health.

A builder who owns the lot at 345 Ferndale asked for permission to remove the tree, which he said would be damaged in the construction of a planned home there. The city ultimately sided with history.

"We made this ordinance to make our urban canopy a priority," said Mayor Pro-Tem Jeff Cuthbertson, who helped draft the ordinance. 

Landmark status

This is the first public hearing on a landmark tree removal request that the city has had since the introduction of the landmark tree ordinance in 2009. A copy of the ordinance is here.

According to the law, the owner of a lot with a landmark tree is charged with demonstrating there is good reason to remove the tree and that that reason outweighs the public interest in retaining the tree.

The spruce tree measures 4 feet in diameter and stretches about 80 feet high. 

"We believe preserving this heritage tree would create an undue hardship and practical difficulty in the location and future construction of a home on the property," owner Gregory L. Windingland of Lombardo Homes wrote to city council.

Windingland told councilmembers on Monday night that he regretted having to ask for the tree to be removed — that it would bring beauty to the lot and the home and that it would be costly to remove it. 

"All things being equal, I would rather save the tree," Windingland said.

However, he said the roots were showing signs of damage, and that if a home were to be built on the lot, the potential for further damage to the tree would be great. 

A strong tree

At the public hearing, two residents spoke in opposition to the tree removal. City Manager Jaymes Vettraino said he received three letters and one phone call from residents who also objected.

But Keith Johnson lives next door to the vacant lot. He urged councilmembers to allow the removal of the tree, which he described as leaning toward his house.

"Eventually, the tree is going to fall," Johnson said. "In a heavy, wet snowstorm, there is potential for this tree to fall on our house."

Nik Banda, Rochester's deputy city manager, is a certified urban forester. He said spruce trees are strong: the root damage that Windingland spoke of was only on the surface of the roots and was not detrimental to the health of the tree.

"I will never sit hear and tell you that this tree is not going to fall over," he said. But the spruce has heavy branches that have an "uncanny ability" to bend and not snap.

Of the 16 points needed for the tree to qualify as a landmark tree, this particular spruce attained 26 points.

"Maybe if it loses some of its points, we would re-evaluate it," Banda said. 

Banda also said that a home would not be approved on that site if it had the potential of harming the tree. 

Cuthbertson said he was confident a home could still be built on the property.

Rochester resident Pat Kane quoted the Joyce Kilmer poem "Trees" and spoke in opposition to the tree removal.

"History in Rochester is not all bricks and mortar," said Kane.

Councilmembers agreed with their unanimous denial of the request.