The Select Board deferred action last week on a homeowner’s request to remove a public shade tree that was irreparably damaged during the demolition of a home on Manning Street.
The four board members present at the Aug. 13 public hearing were evenly divided on whether to agree to a plan offered by Ed Olsen, the town’s superintendent of parks and forestry, to take down the tree located on the public berm in front of 239 Manning St. in exchange for planting two replacement trees, among other considerations.
The tree, a 14-inch diameter London plane, interferes with the homeowners’ plans to locate a driveway on the lot where a new home will replace a 1,200-square-foot house that has been demolished.
Under the state’s Public Shade Tree Law, which protects public shade trees from “unauthorized cutting, trimming or removal,” the Select Board must approve any removal of a shade tree.
“Trees and construction are not always the best mix,” Olsen said at the outset of the hearing. “This tree is right in the way of a designed driveway.”
“We tried to make a win-win-win situation — a win for the town, a win for the homeowner and a win for the environment.”
Toward that end, Olsen and the new owners of the property, Michael and Deanna Virginio, agreed the tree would be removed at the homeowners’ expense. The Virginios agreed to provide a replacement berm tree and purchase and donate a tree to be placed at the Sunita Williams Elementary School.
The school was chosen because Michael Virginio’s mother, the late Carol Virginio, worked for many years as a teacher’s aide at the former Hillside School.
Olsen said he is predisposed not to approve the removal of a healthy shade tree. He was persuaded to recommend the removal of this tree because he believes it will not survive the damage to its root structure as a result of the demolition activity to date and the construction activity to follow.
“Trees drink, they don’t eat,” he explained. “So when tree roots get destroyed from construction, they die. They don’t live through that so it won’t live. It will live another two years and it will die, and I know that from experience.”
“What’s been done is already affecting it because it’s already been excavated out and lost a huge part of its root mass, but what’s to come will kill the tree.”
All four Select Board members expressed varying degrees of dismay over the demise of the tree and said the episode exposed the town’s inability to protect trees in the absence of any town tree bylaw.
“It seems like we should probably be having quite a few more conversations proactively,” said member Marianne Cooley.
“What I hear all the time from residents are stormwater, trees, large houses, trees, stormwater and more trees,” said Kevin Keane, the board’s chair. “People are going slightly ballistic about the whole trees issue in town and how many are being cut down and how many contractors are clearcutting.”
He questioned why the homeowners and their builder, Petrini Corp., could not have devised a way to avoid taking down the tree. “Pencils and erasers are cheap, and you could have drawn around this.”
Board member Josh Levy also asked if it would have been possible to configure the driveway at an angle that would have saved the tree. The owners and the builder said the dimensional challenges of the 7,800-square-foot lot proved too difficult to overcome.
Member Heidi Frail said the town should consider addressing the issue during the permit-issuing process. “I think we need to, when people are pulling permits for construction and there’s a shade tree, maybe we need to set some limits prior to the hole being dug and the tree being dead and coming to us once the deed is done.”
Olsen said he agreed with Frail that the town’s process needs to be examined. “We’re here tonight for one tree, but this is a larger issue, and we’re well aware of that.”
Frail also addressed the builder, Curt Petrini: “No offense, you’re on the hook. This isn’t a new situation. For any developer.”
After referring to the town’s plan to consider a tree protection bylaw, she said, “I’m not blaming you either because the process is what it is, but we’re coming for you.”
The board also heard from the direct abutters to the property, John and Terry Bergdoll, 30-year residents of 233 Manning St. The Bergdolls said they are concerned that a tree on their property — an older and larger oak tree — may also have been damaged by the construction activity.
Terry Bergdoll said she spoke with an arborist. “He said that tree will fail, especially on that side of the street. And that breaks my heart,” she said.
“The tree was there first,” added John Bergdoll. “There used to be a tree canopy on Manning and it’s not there anymore. There are gaps because a lot of this development has been happening. They just whack them down.”
After nearly 40 minutes of discussion, the board eventually voted 2-2, with Cooley and Frail in favor and Keane and Levy opposed to the removal/replacement deal. The fifth board member, Cathy Dowd, was absent.
Frail tried to prevail on the opponents to reconsider. “‘I agree with you guys; I don’t want to take this tree down,” she said. “But the incident has already occurred. This tree is walking wounded. If we vote ‘no’ all that gets us is a big bill in a couple of years to take that tree out. So, wholeheartedly, I don’t want that tree to come down. But the tree is already dead.”
Neither Levy nor Keane relented so the board adjourned the public hearing, which will be resumed at its Sept. 10 meeting when Dowd is expected to be present.
After the Select Board hearing, the Observer asked the town’s building commissioner whether any consideration is given to trees when a building permit is sought.
“Not by my staff,” said Joe Prondak, who has been building commissioner for one year. “No. 1, we don’t have a (tree) bylaw. No. 2, we essentially deal with everything from the property line back in.”
“We look at the plans — the plot plan and the building plan. We look to make sure it complies with zoning, which is height, setbacks, lot coverage and F-A-R (floor-to-area ratio). We make sure that’s OK. Then we go into the building code aspect of it, which is the structure and egress, light and ventilation, and then energy and all that goes along with that.
“Once those two aspects are satisfied, we sign off on the house and then the system forwards it to other reviews — this can involve conservation, engineering, water and sewer.”
Olsen said he shared the board’s frustration and has met and will meet again with Prondak and DPW colleagues to consider ways the process could be improved.
Save as PDF