In a little more than a year, less time than it takes a sapling to fully take root, the Tree Preservation Planning Committee has agreed on most of the specifics of a draft bylaw. The details were presented on March 25. Fourteen people attended the session in person and seven joined online. Almost all of the public comments supported the committee’s efforts to slow down the rate of deforestation, and many thought that the committee’s proposed restrictions were too lax.
The proposed bylaw is triggered only by construction and is applied only to trees along the property line within current setbacks, usually an unbuildable area the Tree Preservation Committee calls the “tree yard.” It requires the input of a certified arborist who, among other determinations, will assess how to protect the critical root zone, an area which may extend inside the tree yard. The bylaw also applies only to overstory trees, or trees that have reached or will reach a height of 40 feet at maturity.
“If the tree is in the buildable area of the lot, you can take it down with no penalty,” said Heidi Frail, committee chair and Select Board member. She told the Observer the draft gives homeowners a variety of options to help them reduce or eliminate any potential fees.
“It provides significant financial incentive to preserve canopy,” she said. “Property owners can tailor and combine preservation, replacement and mitigation strategies.” Mitigation fees would be used to plant trees elsewhere in town.
Select Board member Josh Levy, a representative of the Stormwater Working Group on the Tree Committee, said he hopes “people will avoid the fees and keep the trees.”
“We focused on our overstory or legacy trees,” said Nick Tatar, a contractor and member of the committee. “We often think of those trees as our biological elders. The large trees are the most environmentally beneficial.”
Like in other towns, when trees do end up being removed, the amount of the fine is determined by the tree’s diameter at breast height. Erica Bond, vice chair of the committee and a landscape architect and Master Gardener, reviewed the fee structure and said it is “on the low side of our peers.”
Needham’s proposed plan grants credits for saving overstory trees anywhere on the property, a concept Bond said is unique among the many bylaws the committee studied. She reviewed theoretical scenarios on a small lot with three overstory trees, two of which are in the tree yard. Removing the three large trees resulted in $9,000 in mitigation fees, while saving one of the trees and planting trees that would become overstory trees resulted in no fees.
Andrew Bobenski, a member of the committee representing the public at large, shared a report from the Charles River Watershed Association. Its study of aerial photography shows that Needham loses approximately 14 football fields worth of trees each year.
Frail said the bylaw’s intent is to prevent the “most egregious situations” — mostly the clear cutting of lots, which is the first choice of so many builders of new homes.
Keith Anderson, a self-avowed tree hugger who lives on Fair Oaks Park, was one of many speakers who said the law did not go far enough. He described a situation with a teardown on his street in which the neighbors banded together to pressure the builder to save trees. He urged the committee to hurry its work to avoid more clear cutting. “Time is of the essence,” he said. “Stop the builders from strip mining the town of Needham for their own profits,”
Jim Glickman of Coulter Park said he fears the fees are too low to dissuade builders from clear cutting lots that will hold multimillion dollar homes.
Jeffrey Cohen, who lives on Redington Road, told of a new homeowner who clear cut about 40 overstory trees but did no construction. He lamented that egregious actions like this would still be permitted under the new bylaw. “It should be stronger,” he said.
Joe Matthews of Rosemary Street said he didn’t want to “throw shade” on the proposal, but that the town needed to find more creative ways to preserve its tree canopy.
Jane Volden of Brookside Road was the sole voice of dissent. She said the bylaw was an example of government overreach.
Frail, who has watched two other tree preservation efforts fail to come to fruition in 2016 and 2023, said she believes in incrementalism. “We don’t want to lead ahead of the community. We want to bring the community along,” she said. If the town wants a stronger bylaw after this one has been enacted, she said that could be accomplished.
Rob Braman of Lawton Road has attended all of the committee meetings as an observer and was an early skeptic. He told the committee that he supported the plan even though it isn’t perfect. “I appreciate the hard work and the creative incentive plan,” he said. He told the Observer that a key change for him was that pulling a street permit, needed for most tree work, no longer triggers the proposed bylaw.
Levy told the Observer that there are still some details to iron out, including how to deal with additional dwelling units and pipes and driveways that might go through front yards. He also said the committee needs to fine-tune its presentation.
While the overarching goal of saving trees seems straightforward, public commenters and committee members agree regulation is complex, branching out in many directions.
The draft bylaw is scheduled to go to the Select Board in late May, when public comments will again be heard, and then to fall Town Meeting.
Save as PDF