Brett Marriott, a resident since 1987, presented his case, emphasizing the tree’s proximity to both garages and its compromised stability due to heavy pruning. Marriott explained that the trimming of the tree had created a “sail” effect, making it more susceptible to falling during severe weather. He expressed his concern for his neighbor’s safety, stating, “I don’t want this thing to fall down on his garage,” and stressed that while he valued trees, the safety of nearby structures was his priority.

The discussion revealed that both Marriott and Connors had submitted applications concerning the tree, both of which had been previously denied. The commission had suggested trimming the tree instead of removing it. Marriott pointed out that the tree was leaning toward Connors’ garage and referenced an expert’s warning about its potential to cause damage during a storm. He mentioned, “if it falls over, it’s going to go that way” and could “take out his garage and my neighbor out back’s deck.”

Concerns were also raised about the tree’s root system. Marriott noted that the roots might be affecting water runoff in the area, causing it to “pond” rather than flow properly. He described the ground around the tree as “very spongy,” indicating possible issues with stability and drainage. The commission members discussed these implications, noting that while the tree appeared healthy, its proximity to the garage posed potential risks that could lead to damage in the future.

The issue of tree ownership was also questioned. A commission member raised the point, asking, “who owns the tree?” This led to uncertainty regarding whether the commission should be making decisions on a tree that might not belong to either party. Despite both neighbors expressing a desire for its removal, the exact boundary lines remained unclear.

Another perspective was introduced by a commission member who shared their experience with a large tree that had once threatened their home. They expressed understanding of the concerns surrounding the tree’s potential vulnerability during storms but also noted that the tree had survived previous high winds without issue. They remarked, “the trunk of it has not hit the neighbor’s garage,” highlighting that there had been no evidence of the tree swaying in the wind despite recent severe storms.

The debate continued with some members advocating for precautionary measures while others pointed to the tree’s health and resilience as reasons for not taking immediate action. The possibility of consulting an arborist to assess the tree’s condition was considered, revealing a division in opinion among the commission members.

In addition to the Lone Pine tree issue, the meeting also covered the condition and maintenance of a tree on Stockton Avenue. The commission decided to request that the locust tree in the backyard be properly trimmed and shaped, while permission to remove a cedar tree was granted. They also discussed the upcoming Shade Tree Conference scheduled for October 17th and 18th, expressing a desire for greater participation compared to the previous conference.

The status of trees on Patterson Street was another topic of concern, with no activity reported in several weeks. There had been prior communication with the property owners regarding the incorrect species of trees planted, specifically two pear trees instead of the agreed-upon tupelo trees. A commission member suggested that code enforcement issue a letter to the owners inquiring about the status of the new trees.

Maintenance of Rotary Park was also discussed, with a request for attention to the tall sycamore trees near the bandstand. These trees had dead wood and posed potential hazards. A member urged for action to remove dangerous limbs, referring to them as “widowmakers.”

Further discussions included the enforcement of penalties for damage to trees, particularly during construction. A member proposed that a fine of $27 per inch of tree diameter should apply, emphasizing the need for accountability even if damage was unintentional. The commission acknowledged the importance of proactive measures to protect trees during construction and discussed how to communicate these regulations to contractors and property owners.