2023-06-08-TREE-rpt1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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.