2021-06-24-TREE-min.rpt.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Report to the Tree Committee on Tree Bylaw Enforcement Concerns In the course of developing amendments to the Tree Bylaw for 2021 Annual Town Meeting, I reviewed tree removals on construction sites covered by the Tree Bylaw for 2019 and 2020. This research along with follow-up conversations with the Tree Warden Chris Filadoro brought to light some areas of concern about current enforcement of the Tree Bylaw. • For certain locations I found discrepancies between what is shown on plot plans and reported in the Tree Warden's spreadsheet summarizing bylaw activity and what is observed when looking at the sites. Appendix A documents in detail my observations for the following 5 sites that fell under the bylaw in 2019-2020. 1. 19 Locke Lane 2. 198 Bedford Street 3. 193 Bedford Street 4. 16 Grapevine Road 5. 82 Spring Street(3 Underwood) In four of these cases (1-4)the bylaw activity spreadsheet stated that no protected trees were removed but it is clear that protected trees, including some large ones, were removed. In another (5), it appears that a protected 30" oak was removed that was not accounted for. The red circles on the plot plans were added by me, indicating the protected trees that were removed but not reported. The current bylaw does not mandate reporting of activities (tree removals,protection measures for remaining trees, mitigation plantings or permit or mitigation fees paid) at sites where the Tree Bylaw applies. It is very difficult to trace what actually occurred, and it is possible that what appears to be lack of enforcement is simply lack of documentation. However, if the removed trees were in fact not accounted for during bylaw site visits, they represent underpayments of at least $4,240 in permit fees and $46,300 to the Tree Fund. DPW Director Dave Pinsonneault has stated that the DPW will not look into what happened at these sites. • The Tree Warden has stated that that when a large (24" DBH or greater)protected tree is removed, he asks the builder to replant from the Large Shade Tree list but does not ask for double payment to the Tree Fund if the tree is not fully mitigated by replanting as specified in §120-8 C. • The current Viewpoint Cloud online permitting application for tree removal permits has no provision for the extra mitigation required for large trees that are removed, nor for the extra credit given for replanting using large shade tree species. • The Tree Warden does not require as a routine matter that a builder take the protection measures described in §120-8 C and Section VIIIB in the Tree Management Manual for trees left on the site. He has stated that he speaks to builders if there is a complaint that trees are being harmed; he has discretion over whether remedial or punitive action is taken if the builder still does not comply with the bylaw. Photos taken this spring of some sites where setback trees are not being properly protected are shown in Appendix B. 1