Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-08-TREE-rpt1 June 8, 2023 1 Irregularities in Assessment of Tree Bylaw Fees and Required Mitigation Summary Previous reports1,2 from June 2021 and May 2022 documented issues related to the proper assessment of tree removal permit fees and mitigation payments required by the Lexington Tree Bylaw. In these reports we identified the following issues: • Failure to account properly for removed trees with 24” DBH or greater. • Failure to use correct rates for tree permit fees and mitigation payments. • Failure to assess any fees or mitigation for properties that had protected trees in the setbacks removed • Failure to account for all protected removed trees in the setback. These irregularities, as well as others, continue to cost the Town tens of thousands of dollars per year in lost revenue and decrease the incentive for developers to adhere to the bylaw. Furthermore, opportunities to assess and collect monies owed the Town were not taken advantage of despite the fact that the DPW was repeatedly made aware of them. A companion report3 addresses irregularities in the collection of payments. 1. Introduction This report is a comprehensive study of properties regulated by the Town of Lexington Tree Bylaw4. It updates information on properties previously identified in earlier reports1.2 as exhibiting irregularities in the assessment of tree removal fees and required mitigation. In addition, it provides information about assessment irregularities that have come to light at other properties. Sections 2-5, describe the nature of the irregularities. Our findings and conclusion are presented in Section 6. Appendices A and B review properties with irregularities identified in the June 2021 and May 2022 reports, respectively. We find that many of the commitments made to follow up on specific properties were not carried out. Appendix C, contains an example of a property at which no fees or mitigation payments were collected the despite numerous times that 1Report to the Tree Committee on Bylaw Enforcement Concerns https://records.lexingtonma.gov/WebLink/0,0,0,0/doc/2487316/Page1.aspx 2Use of Open Gov and Bylaw enforcement https://records.lexingtonma.gov/WebLink/0/doc/2510719/Page1.aspx 3 Irregularities in Collection of Tree Bylaw Fees and Mitigation Payments (to be submitted to Town archive). 4 Lexington Tree Bylaw https://ecode360.com/10535335 June 8, 2023 2 this property was brought to the attention of the tree warden. Finally, Appendix D describes the information sources for this report. 2. Failure to account properly for removed trees with DBH 24” or greater In 2017, the tree bylaw was amended introducing the concept of “replacement inch” which for trees 24” DBH or greater is to be calculated as two times the DBH. In May 2021, we reported that this multiplier had almost never been used1. In 2021 the bylaw was further amended specifying the replacement inch to be calculated as four times the DBH. In May 2022 we reported that there were still cases for which the appropriate multiplier was not used and in some cases no multiplier was used at all2. Table 1 includes properties for which this problem continues. There is still no satisfactory explanation for this irregularity that began in 2017 and continues to the present day. 3. Failure to use correct rates for tree permit fees and mitigation payments In 2021 the rates for tree removal permit fees were increased from $10 to $20 per DBH inch and for mitigation payments from $100 to $200 per replacement inch. In May 2022 we reported that there were cases for which the appropriate rates were not being used2. These situations have not been rectified. 4. Assessment of no fees and mitigation requirements for properties that had protected trees removed This problem was reported to the Tree Warden and DPW Director in June 20211. The DPW Director stated that this was due to the practice of not making final inspections at sites at which a developer had indicated they were not going to remove trees. However, we found that this occurred at properties where the developer had, in fact, indicated (in a submitted plot plan, in Viewpoint cloud, and/or the tree wardens’ spreadsheet) that they would remove trees. Table 1 includes such properties, at which the lack of assessment is thus unexplained. In July 2021 the DPW Director stated that5 "Chris will be revisiting all sites prior to a CO to ensure proper adherence to the Bylaw”. However, the problem continues: Table 1 includes properties for which there is no record of permit or mitigation fees being assessed or paid. These properties have certificates of occupancy granted after July 2021, had plot plans that indicated trees were going to be removed and/or had indications that site was visited (e.g., 48 Lincoln St) Thus, the required payments should have been assessed and paid before signoff on the certificate of occupancy was granted. We do not know if these problems were due to the Tree Warden not visiting the site or due to something else. 5 Email to Nancy Sofen July 10, 2021. June 8, 2023 3 5. Not all removed trees accounted for At many properties, more trees were removed than accounted for in the tree warden’s assessments of permit fees and required mitigation. Designation of certain trees as hazards at some of these properties does not explain the discrepancy. The tree warden has stated that the cause of these irregularities is that developers haven’t notified him when they removed trees after the initial designation of trees to be removed was made. However, whether the tree warden was notified or not, the removal of these additional trees should have been accounted for at the final inspection by the tree warden before the certificate of occupancy was issued. 6. Findings We reviewed properties for which certificates of occupancy were issued over the last 3 years. Data sources included: • Annotated Plot plans • Scanned paper tree removal permits (“green sheet”) • Tree warden bylaw activity spreadsheet • Pre- and post-construction plot plans • The Tree Removal Permit created in ViewPoint Cloud. • Comments in records in the ViewPoint Cloud • Google Streetview These sources are described in more detail, including their limitations, in Appendix D. Our findings are contained in Table 1. The significance of the footnotes to the table are as follows: (a) Property was called to attention of Tree Warden in May 2022 and October 2022 – For those properties with certificates of occupancy after these dates, there was an opportunity to correct the issue. (b) Known evader of bylaw – special attention should have been paid to these properties given the history of the developer. (c) Trees were indicated to be removed in the paper plot plan, plot plan submitted electronically, or in ViewPoint Cloud – there should have been no question about the need to make a final determination of the proper assessment before the certificate of occupancy was issued. (d) As-built plot plan was submitted with trees shown submitted – it would have been straightforward to determine the proper assessments even if a final site visit was not performed. (e) Tree(s) ≥ 24” removed are involved in irregularity – one or more large trees were removed and the required mitigation would have been significant. To make clear the continuing nature of these irregularities, we note in the table the point in time at which the June 2021 and May 22 reports were issued the Lexington Department of Public Works, of our general concerns and those relative to specific properties. June 8, 2023 4 Disclaimer Record keeping regarding tree permits has been inconsistent and incomplete. For that reason, it is possible that there are “false positives” in the table. We welcome any corrections. Respectfully submitted, Gerry Paul June 8, 2023 5 Table 1. Properties with Irregularities in Tree Bylaw Assessments Property Applicant Certificate of Occupancy Issued Irregularity Notes 203 Marrett Joshua Michalak 3/24/2023 Wrong Fee/Mitigation rate used All removed trees not accounted for a, c, d 65 Locust Finnegan 3/10/2023 All removed trees not accounted for c, d 74 Oak Joshua Michalak 3/7/2023 Tree removed in ROW. c, d 526 Marrett John Berglund 2/1/2023 Tree(s) removed but no assessment a, b 19 Hastings Richard Phelan 1/4/2023 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 19 Patterson Tom Lamarche 12/22/2022 Wrong Fee/Mitigation rate used a, c, d 5 Munroe Mingzong Zou 12/9/2022 All removed trees not accounted for a, c, d, e 2 Rolfe John Berglund 12/8/2022 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” All removed trees not accounted for a, b 368 Mass Ave c. Defrancesco 10/28/2022 All removed trees not accounted for c, d, e 5 Skyview Tory Kelliher 9/27/2022 All removed trees not accounted for a, c, d, e 9 Fair Oaks Jing Ma 8/25/2022 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c 300 Bedford Andrew Burns 7/19/2022 All removed trees not accounted for a, c, d, e 92 Cedar Mark Barons 7/19/2022 Tree(s) removed but no assessment (242 replacement inches) c, d, e 59 Laconia Walter Scott 7/7/2022 Wrong Fee/Mitigation rate used a, d 7 Holton Mark Barons 7/3/2022 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c, d 212 Concord James Barr 6/22/2022 Tree(s) removed but no assessment b, c, d, e 6 Mill Brook John Hills 5/31/2022 All removed trees not accounted for Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d, e 68 Colony Dalfior Develop. 5/27/2022 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” a, c May 2022 Report Issued 155 Shade Joshua Michalak 4/28/2022 Tree removed in ROW c 197-199 Bedford Robert Burge 3/10/2022 All removed trees not accounted for c 197 Cedar J. Gelormini 3/9/2022 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c, d, e 7 Stevens Ibrahim Algur 1/25/2022 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c 25 Oxbow Seaver 1/20/2022 All removed trees not accounted for c, d 10 Wheeler David Burns 1/18/22 All removed trees not accounted for c, d, e 32 Middle Macro Construct. 1/17/2022 All removed trees not accounted for c, d 44 Paul Revere James Barr 1/14/2022 Tree(s) removed but no assessment b, d, e 7 Bates W. Eycleshymer 12/28/2021 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” 19 Hudson Daniel Moeller 12/21/21 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 25 Wyman Joshua Kelly 12/20/2021 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c 54 Robinson Joel Werrrick 11/26/21 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 37 Woodland Finnegan 11/22/21 All removed trees not accounted for c, d, e 118 Cedar Joshua Michalak 11/9/2021 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d June 8, 2023 6 8 Oxford John Berglund 10/18/2021 Tree removed in ROW b, c, d 10 Constitution John Hills 10/12/2021 All removed trees not accounted for c, d, e 378 Woburn C. Defrancesco 8/25/2021 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 5 Kimball Fernando Dalfior 8/11/2021 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c, d, e 193 Bedford Robert Burge 8/3/2021 All removed trees not accounted for c, d, e June 2021 Report Issued 14 Woodcliffe Yun Chang 6/15/2020 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 26 Volunteer James Barr 6/14/2021 Tree(s) removed but no assessment (500+ replacement inches) b, d, e 137 Wood Mark Barons 5/31/2021 Tree(s) removed but no assessment (274 replacement inches) c, d, e 177 Cedar Finnegan 5/13/2021 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c, d, e 68 Freemont Nick Simon 4/22/2021 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 272 Lowell James Barr 4/22/2021 Tree(s) removed but no assessment b, d 101 Bedford John Esserian 4/21/21 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c, d 22 Washington Joseph Ciampa 3/25/2021 All removed trees not accounted for c, d 14 Colony Fabian Flori 2/4/2021 All removed trees not accounted for Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 48 Lincoln James Barr 1/12/2021 Tree(s) removed but no assessment b, c, d 15 Hillcrest John Berglund 12/16/2020 Problematic hazard declaration b 110 Wood C. Defrancesco 12/16/2020 All removed trees not accounted for c, d 290 Emerson John Hill 11/9/2020 All removed trees not accounted for Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 15 Flintlock Joesph Barr 11/4/2020 All removed trees not accounted for d, “no trees to be removed” 26 Dane Von Salmi 10/30/2020 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” c, d 9 Dunham John Berglund 9/14/2020 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c 24 Columbus Joesph Barr 9/3/2020 All removed trees not accounted for d 20 Hill Mark Barons 8/4/2020 Tree(s) removed but no assessment e 56 Blossomcrest W. Eycleshymer 7/16/20 All removed trees not accounted for 335 total replacement inches c, d 82 Spring Seaver 7/13/2020 All removed trees not accounted for c, e 51 Bertwell Doug Orr 6/24/2020 All removed trees not accounted for c, d, e 7 Graham David Winnick 3/10/2020 Multiplier not used for trees ≥ 24” Trees removed in ROW 198 Bedford James Barr 2/21/2020 Tree(s) removed but no assessment 127 DBH/246 replacement inches b, c, d, e 2 Cushing Erika Hueneburg 1/31/2020 All removed trees not accounted for Tree removed in ROW c, d, e 546 Lowell Joseph Gelormini 1/27/2020 All removed trees not accounted for c, d 17 Volunteer Doug Orr 10/11/2019 Tree(s) removed but no assessment c Open notable properties 2 Wheeler James Barr Tree warden accepted plot plan that did not reflect reality at the property b June 8, 2023 7 72 Prospect Hill Walter Hatfield Trees removed with no permit, fee. Tree removed in ROW Tree Warden notified of above; no action taken. 440 Bedford Trees removed in ROW c a Property was called to attention of Tree Warden in May 202 2 and October 2022 b Known evader of bylaw c Trees were indicated to be removed in paper plot plan, plot plan submitted online or in ViewPoint Cloud d As-built plot plan with trees shown was submitted e Tree(s) ≥ 24” removed are involved in irregularity June 8, 2023 8 Appendix A. Review of follow-up for properties in June 2021 Report1 Responding to the June 2021 report, the DPW Director committed to certain actions for each property6. Despite requests from the Tree Committee, no update was ever provided concerning these promised actions. For each of these properties we list the promised action and an outcome or comment based on the status as of this writing. • 198 Bedford – James Barr o Promised Action: “The builder claims that there were a few trees that were in very poor condition that he removed. Chris did not have a chance to deem them hazards or not hazards and is following up with the builder with regards to next steps.” o Update provided: none o Comment: Developer removed: 8, 24, 24, 31,40=127 DBH, 246 replacement inches. No record of any fee/mitigation payments for this property. • 193-195 Bedford – Robert Burge o Promised Action: “This project has not been closed out yet. There was an additional site visit that was done after the first one that approved the removal of a dead and hazardous tree that was not noted on the plot plan. Chris is working with the builder on next steps.” o Update provided: none o Comment: This lot was actually clear cut. 21”, 7”, 10” and 24” trees were removed. There is no clear record of removed DBH and replacement inches, assessed permit fee, required mitigation and mitigation replanting. The same issues apply to the sister lot at 197-199 Bedford St that was also clear cut. • 3 Underwood (82 Spring St) - Seaver o Promised Actions: “This property was originally submitted as a Spring Street address and the side setback was only 15’ and did not capture the large oak tree at that time. Chris has spoken with the builder and they are aware that they will need to pay additional fees for both the removal and mitigation of this tree.” o Update provided: none o Comment: On corner lots, setbacks on corner sides are 30’ and 20’. The large oak (30” DBH) was within the 20’ setback. No record of any additional fee or any mitigation payment for this property. • 19 Locke Lane – James Barr o Promised Action: “The Builder noted that there were no trees being removed at the time of demo and says that the owner wanted them removed after the house was removed and the builder did not check back in with the Town. When there are no trees agreed to for removal, we do not do a follow up site visit as there is no planting or mitigation requirements. Chris has reached out to the builder and 6 Email to Nancy Sofen, June 17, 2021. June 8, 2023 9 they are aware that they will need to pay additional fees for both the removal and mitigation of the trees.” o Update provided: none o Comment: No record of any fee/mitigation payments for this property. There is no record showing any additional documentation or fee/mitigation payments for these properties. Appendix B. Review of follow-up for properties in May 2022 Report On October 14, 2022 the status of issues raised in the May 2022 report was provided by the DPW7. For each of these properties (grouped by the issue raised), we list the status provided by the DPW and an outcome or comment based on the current status. Some of the statuses provided appear to be pro-forma – not relating to the specific issue raised in the May 2022 report. For such properties, however, other problems may have been identified and are noted. Some irregularities were corrected before issuance of the certificate of occupancy. However, for several properties, despite being made aware of an issue, certificates of occupancy were issued without the correction of the issue; these irregularities could have been rectified before the CO was issued, but they were not. Demolition permits have been issued without certain online tree permit steps completed by the Tree Warden. • 5 Skyview Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Comment: On September 27, 2022 a certificate of occupancy was issued. Additional steps were completed but the “Final CO Inspection – Tree Warden” step was not indicated as complete in the ViewPoint Cloud Tree Permit. • 303 Woburn Street: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Comment. March 13, 2023 a certificate of occupancy was issued without collection of a required mitigation payment. • 59 Laconia Street: o Status provided: “This permit is closed. Trees were planted on property.” o Comment: It is not clear why he would be in contact with the builder to resolve this issue. However, on July 7, 2022, a certificate of occupancy was issued and despite being brought to the attention of the DPW in May 2022, incorrect rates for the permit 7 https://records.lexingtonma.gov/WebLink/0/doc/2777609/Page1.aspx June 8, 2023 10 fee and mitigation payment were used. The trees planted were not sufficient to mitigate the required payment but no mitigation payment was made. Tree permit fees have been assessed incorrectly. • 38 Webster Street: o Status provided: “This permit is closed. Tree mitigation fee was collected.” o Comment: On November 4, 2022 the certificate of occupancy was issued. It appears that an attempt was made to correct this, but there is no record of an additional fee payment. • 203 Marrett Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Comment: On March 24, 2023 the certificate of occupancy was issued. Despite being brought to the attention of the DPW in May 2022, there is no record of an additional fee payment. • 19 Patterson Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Comment: On March 13, 2023 the certificate of occupancy was issued. Despite being brought to the attention of the DPW in May 2022, there is no record of an additional fee payment Additional mitigation for larger trees is not applied consistently • 5 Munroe Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Outcome: A correction was made and the correct multiplier for the trees with DBH ≥ 24” was assessed and paid. However, additional trees removed were unaccounted for. • 68 Colony Road: o Status provided: “Chris is in contact with the builder to resolve this.” o Outcome: On May 27, 2022 a certificate of occupancy was issued. There is no record that the incorrect mitigation calculation was corrected. The trees planted were not sufficient to mitigate even the incorrect mitigation assessment but no mitigation payment was made. Some applicants explicitly provide false information to the Tree Warden that has then not been verified • 526 Marrett Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Outcome: On February 1, 2023 a certificate of occupancy was issued. Despite having been brought to the attention of the DPW multiple times, there is no record that required payments were assessed or made. (See Appendix C for details) • 30 Rockville Road: o Status provided: “Chris is in contact with the builder to resolve this.” June 8, 2023 11 o Outcome: On June 10, 2022 a certificate of occupancy was issued. The required mitigation payment was collected but the tree permit fee was not. • 2 Rolfe Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Outcome: On December 8, 2022, a certificate of occupancy was issued. Despite the DPW being alerted of the fact that no multiplier was being used to calculate the required mitigation payment for the removal of a 24” DBH tree, the incorrect value was assessed. Also, additional trees were removed on the property that were not reflected in the assessment. There is no consistent recording of removal fee payments required/made. • 300 Bedford Street: o Status provided: “Chris is in contact with the builder to resolve this.” o Comment: In the May 2022 report, this was incorrectly inserted. However, on July 19, 2022 a certificate of occupancy was issued with payments not reflecting several removed trees that were unaccounted for. Fees/mitigation payments have been waived with no explanation • 2 Munroe Road: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Comment: On January 13, 2023 a certificate of occupancy was issued. There is still no explanation why the permit fee was waived. • 59 Ward Street: o Status provided: “This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder.” o Comment: As of this writing, this site is still open. The correct permit fee was paid. Appendix C. 526 Marrett Road Tree Removals and Lack of Bylaw Enforcement Example Summary Approximately $39,000 of fees and mitigation payments required under the Lexington Tree Bylaw should have been assessed and paid to the Town for removal of trees at 526 Marrett Rd. Despite having been brought to the attention of the DPW multiple times, there is no record that such payments were assessed or made. Timeline • Feb 10, 2022 – Demolition Permit application submitted. The plot plan indicates that 7 trees will be removed (with only one in the setback). • Feb 17, 2022 – In the Tree Warden Review step in the Demo Permit process in Viewpoint Cloud, Chris Filadoro makes the entry: “per our conversation there are no trees coming down at this time. thanks, Chris” June 8, 2023 12 • Feb 24, 2022 –Demolition Permit issued • March 17, 2022 – A resident, Dan Miller, emails the Tree Committee asking if the Committee knew about the clear cutting of many trees in the setback. • March 29, 2022 – Gerry Paul notifies Dave Pinsonneault of the issue. • March 29, 2022 – Dave Pinsonneault replies: “I spoke to Chris and he is working with the builder. The original approval was to demo the structure without removing trees which Chris confirmed he did. Chris then met the builder on site to assess the trees and determine which trees were to be allowed for removal. The permit information needs to be updated and he will do so this week. Thanks.” [The Demo Permit application was never updated; no tree removal permit was ever issued.] • April 28, 2022 – Gerry Paul sends Dave Pinsonneault the Report on Tree Bylaw Enforcement and the Use of the OpenGov DPW Tree Permit with 526 Marrett Rd included as a property with irregularities • May 5, 2022 – Tree Removal Permit application is submitted by the developer stated: “protected trees to be removed: 0”. • May 7, 2022 – New Construction Permit submitted. • May 22, 2022 – Gerry Paul, Nancy Sofen, and Mark Connor meet with Dave Pinsonneault to discuss the above report including discussion of 526 Marrett Road and other properties developed by John Berglund. • July 14, 2022 – In the Tree Warden Review step in Viewpoint Cloud, Jim Kelly makes the entry: “we still need the tree fee or approval from Chris on tree permit” • August 1, 2022 – 526 Marrett Rd and other properties developed by John Berglund are mentioned as having irregularities at a meeting of Dave Pinsonneault, Jim Malloy, Jill Hai, Joe Pato, Nancy Sofen and Gerry Paul. • October 14, 2022 – After having been requested at the October 13 Tree Committee meeting to provide status on bylaw sites with irregularities, Dave Pinsonneault sends list of sites, including 526 Marrett Road, to Gerry Paul. Status provided is: “526 Marrett Road: This permit is still open. Chris is in contact with the builder. “ • January 18, 2023 – In the Tree Warden Inspection step in Viewpoint Cloud, Jim Kelly makes entry: “Chris, was there ever a fee and approval?” • January 31, 2023 – Jim Kelly makes the entry in the Tree Fee step: “OK to close (CF)” • January 31, 2023 – Jim Kelly makes the entry in the Tree Warden Notification step: “per CF, ok to close”. • February 1, 2023 – Certificate of Occupancy is issued. June 8, 2023 13 It is estimated that approximately 175 DBH inches of protected trees were removed at 526 Marrett Rd. Thus, a tree removal permit fee of $3500 and a mitigation fee of $35,000 should have been assessed and collected by the Tree Warden8,9. There is no record that these required assessments were made or collected. 8 Tree permits are assessed at $20 per DBH inch; mitigation is assessed at $200 per DBH inch unless a removed tree has a DBH greater or equal to 24” in which case the rate is $800 per DBH inch. All the removed trees had DBH’s less than 24”. 9 No mitigation planting was done that would have reduced the mitigation payment required. June 8, 2023 14 526 Marrett Rd Before and After Tree Removals (additional trees were also removed at the rear of the lot). November 2021 March 2022 June 8, 2023 15 Appendix D. Data Sources We used the following for sources of information about assessments • Annotated Plot plans – Before the online Tree Permit in Viewpoint Cloud was implemented, the Tree Warden annotated plot plans submitted by developers with an indication of trees to be removed and trees indicated to be hazards. These annotations were used in preparing the June 2021 report. • Paper tree removal permit (“green sheet”) - – Before the online Tree Permit in Viewpoint Cloud was implemented, the Tree Warden filled out this permit sheet listing the number of inches of DBH to be removed and sometimes information about trees declared as hazards. They were sometimes scanned and uploaded as a file to Viewpoint Cloud. • Tree warden bylaw activity spreadsheet - this spreadsheet has been used by the tree warden since the inception of the bylaw10. It lists the number of trees removed and the number of DBH (diameter at breast height) inches removed. The actual number of inches for which a mitigation payment must be made may differ from the inches removed because: o Removal of fewer or additional trees may have made after an entry in the spreadsheet is created but the entry was not updated. o A removed tree may have had a diameter equal or greater than 24 DBH inches, in which case the diameter is multiplied by 2 or 4 (after July 2017 or July 2021 respectively) to obtain the inches to be mitigated o Trees may have been planted to reduce the required payment • Pre- and post-construction plot plans. These do not always show trees on the property as required by the bylaw. • The Tree Removal Permit created in the online system - in many cases this is not filled in by the applicant or tree warden (or is filled in incorrectly). • Comments in records in the Viewpoint Cloud system – this is not done consistently • Google Streetview – this is useful because it provides historical information about a property before and during development. 10 Entries in this spreadsheet were no longer made by the tree warden after October 14, 2021.