During the meeting, the city code enforcement officer laid out a case against Tree Monkey Inc. with a 15-page evidence packet. The evidence was comprehensive, including photographic documentation of the tree both prior to and following its removal, and a detailed record of the interactions between the city and the respondent. The crux of the issue was that Tree Monkey Inc. had proceeded to remove the tree, allegedly diseased, without securing the necessary permit from the city.

Tree Monkey Inc. defended its actions with several points. The company had secured an arborist’s letter, which they believed gave them the clearance to proceed without a city permit. Furthermore, they argued that the city did not maintain the right-of-way where the tree was located, claiming that maintenance responsibilities fell to the property owner. They also presented a property survey to support the claim that the right-of-way was, in fact, a utility easement. In their defense, they underscored the diseased state of the tree and the intention to plant a larger, healthier tree in its place.

A resident supported Tree Monkey Inc.’s claims, testifying that the tree had been in poor condition for some time and had been assessed by arborists before. The documentation provided by the respondent included the arborist’s report and the resident’s testimony, which were both taken into consideration during the meeting.

The Special Magistrate’s meeting included a 10-minute adjournment to allow for the review of the new documentation presented by Tree Monkey Inc. Upon resumption, the discussion delved into the specifics of the photographs’ timing and the actual condition of the tree when it was removed. Questions arose about the arborist’s report, particularly whether it mandated an onsite inspection and if the tree was removed on the same day the report was issued.

One of the more contentious points of debate was whether the arborist’s letter met the statutory requirements for tree removal. The city representative contested the applicability of the statute to trees located in the right of way and maintained that the statutes in question were designed to protect private owners in emergency situations, not to provide blanket exemptions for tree removal.

As the conversation progressed, the nature and threat of mistletoe as a parasitic plant were discussed. The debate touched upon the statutory requirements for tree removal, with differing views on whether those requirements had been met in this case.

The meeting did not culminate in a resolution but set the stage for a continued hearing. The debate brought to light concerns over the potentially widespread removal of trees in the right of way, which could alter the neighborhood’s landscape. The next hearing, scheduled for June 27th, aims to determine conclusively whether the tree was rightfully removed and to ensure compliance with city statutes moving forward.