John Warren
Building a driveway was a matter of some discussion in the Watkins household. They live across the street in Norfolk from the residence of Old Dominion University's presidents. That means lots of parties. And lots of parking issues.
The night their new car got sideswiped while parked on the street, the Watkinses went into action.
The first step was a permit from the city to build the driveway, which meant getting a permit from the city's Department of Forestry. That's because a tree stood in the way of their plans - specifically, one of the city-owned crape myrtles that line Melrose Parkway in Larchmont.
You can't cut the driveway in the tree's "drip line," the Watkinses learned. Simply put, in any spot where rain drips, no driveway. And if you start digging your driveway and find roots more than 2 inches in diameter, you must stop.
With crape myrtles about 10 feet apart, that left only one option: remove a tree. That meant a visit from a city tree assessor to determine the cost of getting a permit to do so.
You're in luck, the assessor announced. Because the city has an abundance of crape myrtles, the permit is half-price: $4,000 instead of $8,000.
Even if they paid the $4,000, the Watkins family would still have to pay a contractor to actually remove the tree, and that's all in addition to what the driveway would cost.
And what are those costs? "I haven't even checked into it; I was so floored by the $4,000," Valerie Watkins said.
Out of curiosity, Watkins asked what the $4,000 goes toward. Upkeep of trees, she was told. She asked the last time the city pruned the crape myrtles on her street. She said the answer was 1994. Crape myrtles are prone to "volunteers" - sprouts at their base - and you need training to prune them correctly. "Pretty," Watkins said of the trees lining her street, "but messy."
Aside from posting some protest signs on the tree at issue, Watkins is at a dead end, car still parked on the street.
One thing that bothers her, There's no set price for the value of a city tree. It's subjective.
What do you think, readers? Should the cost of removing a tree in the city right of way be prohibitively expensive - presumably to discourage the practice? Or should folks such as the Watkinses be afforded a real-world price?
The Warrior aims to soon publish a full dissertation from the city on tree-pricing.
Readers write in about new traffic light
The Warrior wrote last week about the new traffic signal on Brambleton Avenue and Botetourt Street in Norfolk. On a long signal-less stretch from Colley Avenue to Duke Street, it has been an unwelcome addition for many. Readers said long traffic queues build up on Brambleton to accommodate few or no cars turning off Botetourt.
The Warrior asked your opinions.
Downtown worker Jim Owens wrote: "The reader who is concerned about the traffic signal holding up traffic on Brambleton Ave is missing the point. As constructed, Brambleton is a chasm separating two very attractive and walkable neighborhoods," he wrote. "The signal is as much for pedestrians, and will become even more important with the construction of the light rail station."
But reader Linda Cameron said there's an alternative for pedestrians:
"At least part of the solution to the problems at this spot is for the city to encourage folks to use the underpass (i.e. under Brambleton) that is only a few feet from the light location, at the end of the newly repaired Brambleton Bridge," she wrote.
"Many people do not know about this, and a couple of signs would be a big help. It is a broad, accessible - at least from the north side - way to cross Brambleton in complete safety. It can be used by folks in wheelchairs, strollers, as well as pedestrians and bicyclists.... It is by far safer than crossing Brambleton at the Botetourt light."
Has start time for street sweeping changed?
The Warrior has written in the past few weeks on the new street-sweeping hours throughout Norfolk and their effect on the densely populated Ghent neighborhood. The start time of 7 a.m. once a month is unreasonable, say the residents who have to move their cars in order to accommodate the street sweeping machine.
Late last week, The Warrior caught wind from readers that new signs are sprouting, proclaiming a 9 a.m. start time. I'm waiting on confirmation from the city that a change has been made.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Norfolk's $4,000 tree
Folks overlook the original request reason: Walker's live across from ODU President's home; parking is at a premium due to parties there; & Walker's incurred vehicular damage.
Norfolk isn't responding in an appropriate manner to a reasonable citizen's request. Call 911 for parking enforcement. Soon, Norfolk will have a record of the problem & can weigh response expense verses tree value... and I'm a tree-hugger.
Hopefully, Norfolk will come to their senses & review their position; a compromise is beneficial to both. This isn't a superfluous request, but rather a reasonable one, imo.
What say you, City of Norfolk?
I wonder???
I wonder if the developers of the newly approved housing plans for Bay Oaks will pay 4,000 per tree. It would be nice if the VP would actually follow up on this issue. One crepe myrtle versus how many old growth oaks?
Stop being nice...
My neighborhood doesn't ask to cut down crepe myrtle trees - they just do it.
FYI
Nailing signs to city trees (Not good)
Options?
Why not remove the tree in order to put in a driveway, then plant a sapling slightly further down along their property? This is a classic case of the city of Norfolk not taking care of it's residents.
Should not have purchased a
Should not have purchased a house w/out a driveway in the first place.
trees have value beyond money
It seems to me that the trees were planted many years ago and now they have grown to a mature height. Why would the city invest the time and effort to plant and maintain the tree, only to cut it down when it has acheived a size and shape that many would love to have in front of their homes. This is a tree the community has an ownership stake in. I dont think 4000$ is unreasonable given the fact that you cant buy a tree of that size anywhere. The city should periodically check up on this tree to ensure that no mysterious sudden death occurs.
Wondering...
I wonder what the fine is for cutting down the tree without permission? ...lol.
street trees
Every city in Hampton Roads have utility easements and city right of ways on portions of a homeowners property where the homeowner not only maintains the area but also pays property taxes on it. Additionally, the homeowner is not allowed to erect a "permanent" structure there; no storage buildings, fences or elaborate landscaping; if it becomes necessary to access the area of concern the "improvements" will be removed, sometimes at the owner's expense - but never replaced.
The same goes with Norfolk city trees, they were there before the home was purchased, a litte nip around the base of the tree deters suckers and a minimal dead heading blooms encourage growth. A healty crepe myrtle is a wonderful tree to behold.
If this homeowner is allowed to remove a tree from city property for convenience, what stops the rest of the neighborhood from demanding equal treatment. In very short order, a lovely tree lined street is denuded. Loss of these trees lead to a lack of astectics and therefore in the long run property values.
Bottom line the situation existed before they purchased their home, they could have decided to buy elsewhere where driveways are allowed. They didn't. Th
Driveway or Tree?
I would think that the city would want people to improve the look of the neighborhood, thereby adding an asthetically pleasing element and potentially increasing property values. Having to pay ANY money to the city to remove a tree is what is ridiculous (unless of course the city is actually going to be physically removing the tree). However, I agree that the trees should not be removed without permission or purpose. But that permission, in my opinion should be the limit of the city's business and the rest should be in the hands of the homeowner, better known as the party responsible for the maintenance of the driveway and the mess left by the trees.
I'll remember that...
This is what I don't get...
The trees are city owned. The strip of grass they sit on, is city property. I, am responsible for mowing that grass, on city property. My sewer line is being damaged by the roots from those city owned trees, but that's my problem. The city does a POOR job of pruning said trees, unless they run through power lines. The mess on the sidewalk from said tree, is my responsibility to clean up.
LOVE THE SIGNS!
I have been thinking of making a few myself for my property lately. I won't bore anyone with the details, but needless to say Norfolk doesn't want you touching their land to change it but then they expect us to manicure the grass on it and pick up trash from vagrants, but they won't even enforce keeping miscreants from littering in the first place. Hmm, I guess when we buy a house in Norfolk we become a slave of the city. Fight the good fight!
$4000 just to be allowed to
$4000 just to be allowed to remove a tree seems ludicrous, though I'm not saying that people should be able to chop down city trees at their whim. Certainly compromise can be made? Would a non-paved driveway (or a driveway paved with permeable asphalt) alleviate the "drip-line" concerns?
I doubt that there is a huge list of citizens wanting to cut down city trees, so I would think it should just be handled on a case by case basis. If no compromise can be found that doesn't require removing the tree, than they shouldn't make it prohibitively expensive for anything to be done.
A better question than the
A better question than the stoplight on Brambleton is "why is the right lane closed two blocks to the east?" Where they are building the new Hampton Inn at Duke street, they blocked the right hand lane off two weeks ago... a week later they put up some chain link fence... But there is NOTHING happening in that lane. Why? (and if something is going to happen in the future cant they wait to block off the lane?)