The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-06-24-TREE-min.rpt.1 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 • In a prior Tree Committee meeting we discussed the apparent shortfall of tree removal permit fees collected from 2017-2020, when the inches of protected trees removed reported by the Tree Warden was compared to the amounts reported received by the Finance Office. DPW Director Pinsonneault worked with the Finance Office to investigate and found that a single check or credit card deposit to the Town's general funds may be made in payment of multiple fees by a builder, without necessarily itemizing those payments. He stated that he is confident that fees are being collected and acknowledges that better tracking may be a reasonable goal in the future. Implementation of the amendments to the Tree Bylaw passed at spring 2021 Annual Town Meeting should help address some of the issues noted here. The Tree Committee expects to work with the DPW and the IT Department to ensure that the Viewpoint Cloud permit application captures both the replacement inch calculation for large trees and the large shade tree planting credit. The post-construction spreadsheet to be provided by builders that lists all removed and newly planted trees will facilitate uniform compliance with the bylaw and more accurate and accessible records of bylaw activity. Currently I am not confident that trees removed under the bylaw are adequately mitigated, and I am quite sure that trees remaining on the site are often not adequately protected from damage. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sofen June 9, 2021 2 APPENDIX A: BYLAW ACTIVITY DISCREPANCIES �r1: 19 Locke Lane (by Westview Homes) Plot plan submitted February 2019 shows no trees marked for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019 summary spreadsheet states no trees were removed at this address. IIIV �I The property sold in December 2019 for$2.5M. rF %i LOT 34 e p q 140011 4-1 PIP >, i LOT 43 %%%iii. �� •�, ��: �� , � `' i • n r 430751 F r � w, x� 6 awevzu� awr w'slkyr wf Atlw9•FT mum CT9 —T' �...� � 1 � Y�PAYM1'llzY.i'@ltl kdlb.6 v�/, fK'"� ra m. � , ®wv6maEb,e a.aucdtlg.ua r � I 'C �.L.,' LA NP LOCAIED AS SH � PROPOSED PLOT PLAN #19 LOCKLOCKE LACY ° a IWV (MIDDLESEX COUNTY) dSCALE: 1 SSURVEY wet t�47r�M ,- � i, til�l�ie RR SUR E"Y M07'2A MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE,AVENUE,a, o E. AP7LINCi TON,. MA 02476 THiS PLAN MAY HAVF KEN MARES dT (781) 648-5533 THE _,1ey1,,,ATU'r I'S RdU7 rPW KLIF 1,7 MI1)"m No trees were marked as hazards, and it appears that the following protected trees were removed: 1@30" (= 60 replacement inches), 1@22", 3@18", 1@14", 2@12", 1@10", 1@8", 5@6" for a total of 222". Google street view shows that 9 new trees were planted. One is a spruce, four are Callery Pear, one is a small ornamental Japanese Maple and the others are blocked from view by a fence. Assuming those 3 are large shade tree species, that totals 39 inches of mitigation planting. Proper mitigation would have required further payment of at least $18,300 to the Tree Fund and there should have been application fees of$1,920 paid to the town. 3 2: 198 Bedford Street (by Westview Homes) Plot plan submitted February 2019 shows no trees marked for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019-2020 summary spreadsheet states no trees were removed at this address. The property sold in July 2020 for$1.9M. 41, BEDFORD�'STRE, A d. j LCAT C �AV wawa • T V mst� n AREA xa 136.76° °. �0 4? PART LOT B Cp7 Ow �Po I tl III ' "! PWMED FM'wesT'Agw INC31YIEr ASSMMS MAP 65 PaROM 170 SCNIN4 DWRICt(")SNZE R�.§'tl(IFPIC6 FLOOD MAP 25WFWPC 0605 F,N,W"a,/�fMINY,Z01"Ie'% I HEREBY�P711F'N'6WA1''$'NtlE'6'lppLLNPNG tl5 LOCATED AS SHaw tl. PROPOSED PLOT PLAN #198 BEDFORD STREET (MIDDLESD COUNTY) VN LEMGTON. MA � SCA9-363' DATE. 12/14/2018 MMWW ..........._ �u an an an rA y�... ON a ROBER SURVEY r . . MASSAC11S A'4 ENI3E RRINGTp (�srseMA 02476 6HN5 kNTN BEEN ALTERED IF a-5533 TME SGINAURE IS NOT SGNED INBLUE, I M9PP2,OWC i No trees were marked as hazards, and the following protected trees were removed: 1@40"(80 replacement inches), 3@24"(48 replacement inches each), 1@14"for a total of 238 replacement inches. Three trees from the large shade tree list were planted,for 18" of mitigation planting, leaving rY� Y'c $22,000 owed to the Tree Fund in mitigation payment and $1,260 owed to the town in permit application fees. it The remaining 24" oak has since been removed, and in spring 2021 the 40" oak is exhibiting some decline. Were protection measures taken? 4 3: 193 Bedford Street (Lexington Development Associates LLC) Plot plan submitted May 2019 shows no trees marked for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019-2020 - summary spreadsheet states no trees were removed at J this address. The home was listed for sale in November 13,274 S;F 2020 for$1.45M. No trees were marked as hazards, and the lot was cleared with the following protected trees removed: 1@24"(48 replacement inches), 1@21", 1@14"1 1@10"1 1@7" for a total of 100 replacement inches. 2—FA,M1a'n r HOUSE j wn ��O r-9�u There appear to be several new trees planted, including large shade tree species. It is not clear whether mitigation was complete through replanting. Permit application fees owed to the town would be $760. dal r k 1 timm/ ' I � 74.P�1d' o I �,.r0 g a.i b� I roau a � 3CP.Jd" 0 m BFDFORD STREET I I a li r y p LI j i� J r , e I 5 IVplp, 11N9e III INil9 �4 1, M ® 4: 16 Grapevine Avenue (by Adish Properties LLC) Plot plan submitted in 2019 shows no trees marked for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019-2020 summary spreadsheet states no trees were removed at this address. The property sold in January 2021 for$1.5M. 'I) j No trees were marked as hazards, and it appears that 2 or 3 t protected trees (whose sizes are not given on the plot plan) were removed. 9 . f 114 r w rm r� a 1 m�kyd w� V�srt'M I� Xrax VIIIA IIIIIIIII '� 4M / I- 2u I ol �If . 1 1 r � ry crrb�,n 6 5: 82 Spring Street (3 Underwood) (by Seaver Properties LLC) The builder of this house, which sold for$2.2M in September 2020, did a very nice job of preserving several large shade trees. Notations on the June 2019 plot plan and in the Tree Warden's summary spreadsheet state that 50" of protected trees were removed. One dead tree was marked on the plot plan. r A 30" oak (60 replacement inches) marked TBR on the plot plan was in fact removed. It was not labeled a hazard, nor was it included in the total inches to be mitigated. Removal of this protected tree would have required $300 in application fees and mitigation of 60" by replanting or payment to the Tree Fund of$6,000. P3b CfM' rrowa7,r Ni WV , u u � rrr r M � p PROPCS�,D HOUSE $yI III 8 1 57Y 11145 M'r.tl Nd 9WM Cis RM IWAM UNDERWOOD ROAD n�A. 1"y 1 v . �, razcaw�ed ✓' %�� i////��/ l�/��7/ y+»�ri��i��D'/��i�I!I��Jli °(f. ;, ao� iiia.., i � 17 i;. • , , u ` t- r 7 APPENDIX B: TREES IN SETBACK LACKING PROTECTION FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION 8 Eliot Road wE � {{ z'�Ywi r " a � y � "� ,. fanm�m.,ca»,e°tom°' ., ��.✓�n Amfl� �. '� f"( i / r ti 52 Hancock Street r « a 21 Wheeler Road 8