If you’re disturbed by some of the recent cases of clear-cutting of trees by developers, such as at 34 Wilde Road, Waban, pictured above and below, tonight’s Programs & Services meeting (8pm, Rm 222) should be of interest. P&S will be reviewing proposed revisions to the city’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance, passed in 2009, essentially requires developers taking down healthy trees greater than 8″ diameter to plant replacement caliper inches or pay into the city’s Tree Preservation Fund. It works pretty well for large commercial or institutional projects, but less so for individual house lots.
This excerpt from the minutes of the November 20 P&S meeting summarizes the situation:
The intent has been met but as time has passed, developers and builders have found some loopholes in the ordinance. The behavior to evade the ordinance has been escalating recently with builders openly stating their intent to do so. Now that people have figured out how to get around compliance, enforcement is nearly impossible.
This includes developers making their purchase of a property contingent on the seller removing the trees, or saying they will occupy the property and claiming an exemption. To remove the loopholes, the solution that Forestry, the Law Department and Urban Tree Commission propose is to eliminate the concept of “exempt lot” and “occupied” (remember how hard “occupied” is to disprove). Instead , anyone would be able to remove a limited number of trees without a permit, but more than five protected (8″ or greater) trees, more than 80″ of protected trees, or a single tree more than 50″ in diameter, in a consecutive 24-month-period, would require a permit, and planting or paying for replacement caliper inches.
You can read the minutes of the preliminary discussion at P&S on November 20, as well as the proposed revisions to the ordinance, here.
Julia,
Thanks for posting those amazing pictures. Between the tree removal and the leveling of the hill, it looks like a completely different county!
Could you explain why the current tree preservation ordinance is not enforceable or effective? In the case of 34 Wilde rd it’s as though there was no ordinance. Is this the result of a bad law or a lack of will to enforce?
Terry, basically because it was written to try to not apply to houses with regular people living in them. Probably because it was thought that was the only way to get anything passed at all. That is the source of the loopholes.
I believe Wilde Road was an example of the developer having the seller cut down the trees just prior to the date of sale. The seller wasn’t filing for a building or demolition permit, so the tree removal permit issue doesn’t even come up. You’re right, it’s as if there was no ordinance.
Here’s one part of the relevant language in the current ordinance (Note, I’m having trouble doing two blockquotes close together):
A developer working on the house next door to us hired an arborist who cut back an ailing tree on city property. From what I’ve been told, the cuts they made on this city tree were a hatchet job that will cause the tree to die. They then began cutting limbs off a tree on MY property (the limbs were on MY property). When I insisted that they stop, one of them yelled at me, saying that they were just saving me the expense of hiring an arborist. When I called the city to report the incident, I was told that the situation wasn’t bad enough for them to take action.
What if I hadn’t been home when this developer had his arborist begin to cut limbs off my tree? How far would they have gone? They clearly did a very poor job on the city tree (which they had no right to touch in the first place). Why would I want them working on my tree? And my last question, why is there not a very hefty fine for developers who dare touch a city tree?
I was disappointed to learn that the tree ordinance does not apply to state owned land which means that the private developer at Riverside will be removing all of the trees along the T side of Grove Street without any oversight. It may be that the proposed landscaping plan for the development will include replacement trees that meet the intent of the ordinance but there is no requirement for this. This may be a one of a kind situation that would be hard to address in a change to the ordinance.
Steven, compliance with Newton’s tree ordinance is a condition of the Special Permit approved by the Board of Aldermen. The Planning Board approved the removal of the street trees that belonged to the city and the special permit requires extensive landscaping throughout the site, particularly along Grove Street. The trees being removed are on a steep slope from Grove Street down to the existing parking lot and include a lot of trees that are not protected because they are under 8″ in dimater, or are diseased or dying, as well as some healthy trees that are protected by the tree preservation ordinance and the street tree law.
I see language in the Riverside Special Permit that says the building permit will not be issued unless the developer “complied with the City of Newton Tree Preservation Ordinance, if applicable”, but the tree ordinance is not applicable in this case because state owned land is specifically exempt. Am I misinterpreting this? On another issue maybe the 8″ diameter limit in the Ordinance needs to be reconsidered in cases where there is a wooded area with lots of smaller trees that are beneficial to the environment. Specific to Riverside – there are several >8″ trees at street level between the driveway to Riverside and the bridge for the T tracks. My understanding is that years ago former Alderman Polly Bryson advocated to have these trees planted to screen Riverside from Grove St. While you may like the extensive landscaping proposed by the developer, there is no need to minimize the impact of removing trees by characterizing them as diseased or dying or on a steep slope.
I am pretty sure the tree ordinance applies, since the developer has an 86 year lease. Regardless, the developer is replacing the trees with landscaping and trees all along Grove Street and throughout the site. The tree ordinance is not “applicable” to unprotected trees. My point was not to minimize the impact of removing trees, but rather to note that not all of the trees being cut down are “protected trees” under the ordinance, i.e., more than 8″ in diameter, healthy, etc. Diseased or dying trees and trees under 8″ in diameter are not protected regardless who owns the property. The site plan involves regrading the Grove Street frontage to make it level with the street, eliminating the slope, so they are being removed and replaced with rows of trees and landscaping all along Grove Street, as well as throughout the site.
There seem to be an increasing number of cases where lots are clear cut or large numbers of mature trees are removed on primary and side lots, or for new development. Upland Rd, Comm Ave, Chestnut St, and Chaske Ave are just a few examples where the removal of trees has completely (and effectively forever) changed the character of a section of the street.
I certainly welcome stricter tree preservation ordinances with CLEAR wording, but more importantly, we need a tree ordinance which is enforceable so that in situations where gross violations have occurred that fines can actually be enforced. Unfortunately the same can be said of building and zoning violations which also don’t seem to be able to be enforced leaving neighbors helpless.
what happened on Wilde Road was egregious, immoral, unethical–but somehow legal.
The developer’s desire to build a huge mansion has transformed a beautiful space into an ecological disaster.
I hope that this is not replicated across the city. It is a profoundly sad statement about thoughtless greed and short-sightedness
As the neighbors who live across the street from this nearly clear cut lot, we feel the loss of the greenery very acutely.
Even after the house is finished, and the site is landscaped, it can’t make up for the unique topography and beautiful lot that existed before more than 12 very old growth trees were ripped out. It is amazing to think that the law allows this type of stripping. No matter how nice the house will be, it detracts from the neighborhood because it’s oversized and consumes most of the site.
How sad. That lot on Wilde Road was beautiful as was the way the house was situated on it.
What Peter said.
As the direct abutter in the blue house our family has been most affected by this awful project. They removed a glacial hill and at least 30 trees. They killed trees on our lot and then told us they were dying (because they disrupted roots that crossed the property line).
This whole project has been awful and the house on the other side of it is also being torn down and large trees have been removed.
I moved to this block because I liked the modest homes and the high tree canopy, but all of those things will be relegated to photographic history.
We will live in the shadow of a 6500 s.f mega mansion with a stone fortress around it. In some towns there is legislation about tear downs requiring tree replacement and restricting the size of the new building to no more than 10% larger than the pre-existing home. Newton might want to look at that in the future (check out Belmont — they learned the hard way).
The tree conservancy has been looking at this for a while and I had several conversations with Marc Welch the tree warden about improving the tree preservation ordinance to address the issue, particularly after seeing what was done on Wilde Road. We had a very thoughtful conversation about it the other night in Programs & Services. Like demolition delay, tree protection ordinances that are imposed on everyone need to strike a balance between individual property rights and protection of natural resources that are, after all, privately owned.
How many of the trees on private property are being removed by a developer who never intends to live there?
Developers and builders have found a way to get around the law. Homeowners are entering into purchase and agreements with developers which require them to remove the trees prior to the closing. Currently, the tree preservation ordinance exempts lots owned and occupied by homeowners.
Could there be a restriction that specifies that if trees are removed within the same year of a sale that a tree replacement tax must be added to the price? In the case of Wilde Road they denuded the land two days before the sale (which happened the same week as the Boston bombing)
They also took down many other trees during the excavation of hill over the course of the last six months. There has to be some way to prevent this.
Our situation is particularly bad because our 1921 house was built less than 7 feet from the property line — though we always had privacy from the hill and all the greenery. Now the mega mansion looms over us and is eye level with all of our windows and they have removed the hill — including our side of the hill.
That said — I think Newton needs stricter zoning rules around mega mansions. Commonwealth Avenue’s tacky mansions are a travesty and it looks like Anawan is going to be experiencing the same treatment. It’s changing the character of the community. We’ve lived in Newton for over 20 years and we are sadly considering leaving this city.
We will never host a Newton political fundraiser int our house again — maybe the people who move into the mansion next door will host. They can invite everyone in all the villages because there will be plenty of room.
Has anyone looked at the “downhill” effect of removing old growth trees from a stormwater perspective? If residents downhill of the denuded property were adversely affected by stormwater runoff that would previously have been sucked up by large and deep tree roots, wouldn’t the developers/new owners/City be liable for such runoff damage? I know Waban already has a stormwater problem…we have been talking about it at the Waban Area Council meetings for a couple of years. Removing old growth trees can’t be helping the situation!
Developing a solution to this problem shouldn’t be that difficult. The developers will be unhappy, but they’re unhappy with any restrictions that restrict them from making fast money. This is becoming a concern people talk about privately, but only recently have people begun to speak out about it. It’s about time.
No offense to the abutters; I say this respectfully… I’ve got to imagine that in most parts of Massachusetts and in fact most parts of the United States, clearing any amount of trees for a home is completely natural and as much of the process as clearing boulders or an unwanted pool. The problem is that we in this urban environment live so close we take it personally when green stuff that makes a certain outdoor wall is removed and our view changes, as well as of sense of ownership in terms of space. With that green stuff — are all tress alike? The trees I’m seeing in the pictures look like the typical invasive Norwegian maple that is not native and not kind to native trees. Do I need to l;ook at invasive trees for the balance of my life if I buy in Newton?
I think I understand the issue with abbuters — but this is Newton, incorporated as a “City”. We can’t freeze things on the day we took possession of our home (and cleared stuff we thought were unkempt). Besides, that could be a McDonalds instead of a home.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” –H. L. Mencken
This is a complex problem, because homeowners who want to remove trees for an addition, a patio, a swimming pool, or because they just don’t like trees are going to be adversely affected by losing the current exemption. The proposed amendment limits the number of trees/caliper inches that can be removed by any property owner in a 24 month period. I am not sure everyone is going to happily accept this. So there is no simple solution to this problem, which is why Marc Welch and the tree conservancy are going to keep talking to city departments and get back to the committee next term. At the very least, before taking action I think the BOA should have a public hearing on it to get residents’ views as well.
(The corollary to H.L. Mencken’s observation is from Groucho Marx: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”)
Ted Hess-Mahan — Similar to the snow ordinance, the dog park tag ordinance and the proposed leaf blower ordinance — with a tree ordinance we are making volumes of ordinances where it’s no one’s job to enforce. (There’s no snow removal maid that walks around with tickets.) I’m concerned about uneven enforcement where it takes someone to drop a dime. This uneven enforcement doesnt feel right and with enough similar ordinances can be used as tools to harass people we don’t like.
Hoss, the tree ordinance can be and has been successfully enforced in the past when builders and developers came in for special permits and demo and construction permits. The issue now is that developers and builders have found a way around the provisions that were intended to exempt homeowners who want to take down trees in their yards. But, to your point, there are a lot of zoning and other ordinances that are complaint driven. The building inspectors cannot be all over town looking for violations but do investigate complaints. When owners or builders come in for a building permit, the inspectors often discover violations of the building and safety code as well as zoning and health (the BOA recently learned that the health department unfortunately does not do inspections as required for condominium conversions or rental apartments, which is a management/budget issue). Are you suggesting that we repeal the building and fire codes because they cannot be enforced unless someone complains or comes in for a building permit? Of course not.
Sorry for being late to respond. My wonderful stay-cation ended & I’m still trying to fit in a lot of stuff around work. Let’s see if I can answer some of the questions:
@Jane, what part of the city did you call about the neighbor’s tree company? Urban Forestry can’t do anything about cutting of private (your own) trees. Possibly the police might respond if they were destroying the tree, but the neighbor can cut the limbs that hang over their side of the property line, and often the proper way to do it is to cut to the trunk (leaving the branch collar of course) if there is not a suitable smaller side branch to cut back to. They should not have been pruning a city tree without a permit. That’s a violation ($300 fine for doing it without a permit, and paying for replacement caliper inches if the tree was healthy and they fatally injured it), but proof is the issue. If anyone sees that happening, it’s good to get photos, video, now that so many people have smartphones, and company and license plate numbers, etc. The public tree ordinance says the fine can be $300/day for continuing violations (e.g. failure to plant replacement caliper inches, having construction equipment or soil piled on the root zone, etc.)
@Steve, I sympathize with your feelings about the under 8″ trees. You can get a lot of good screening and other environmental benefits from a bunch of 7″ trees. But if the ordinance applied to more trees, there might be more resistance, and it would also be more time-consuming to enforce. Some cities use 6″, some go by canopy (which is harder to measure), some cities have different size cutoffs for different species (e.g. for some slow-growing but valued species, 8″ would be a big tree).
@Lori, the 24-month period for a property regardless of ownership change in the proposed revision is an attempt to do what you are suggesting with the tree replacement tax. I suspect if you wanted to make it a transfer tax of some sort, it would have to be approved by the state legislature.
@Hoss, yes tree-cutting is going on all over the country, but many other parts of the country take tree removal and replacement much more seriously than we do here in New England, where the individual property rights philosophy seems to prevail. Notably Atlanta and other parts of Georgia as well, California, Washington state, Montgomery County Maryland which just passed a couple of strong ordinances covering public and private trees. This WSJ article from back in 2007 will give you an idea. (Just came across it while trying to find out what happened to the couple fined $347,000 — it was reversed.) http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119819902857243631
@Ted, it’s really the Urban Tree Commission, not the Newton Tree Conservancy, that’s been working on this ordinance. Although a lot of us are the same people because, as I keep saying to people interested in tree issues, WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TREE PEOPLE. There are openings on the mayor-appointed UTC, and we would love to have more people get actively involved in the Tree Conservancy.
A general comment: yes, the proposed revisions may result in some cost to some people, even though the intent, with the five-tree allowance, etc. is to enable most homeowners to do routine tree removal. (Note, though, that it also allows the developer doing the teardown next door to you to cut down five trees free, even if those five trees are along the property line and the buffer that would keep the mega-mansion from looking in your windows.) But if we operated on the philosophy that no extra cost should be imposed on anyone, there’s a lot of stuff we wouldn’t do. Landscaping companies say a leaf-blower ordinance would add to their costs and they would have to charge their customers more. Historic districts keep people from doing some things, and make it more expensive to street-facing renovations. Vaccinations are very invasive and can even cause rare deaths but we think it’s worth it for the public health benefit.
Julie-The “arborist” was cutting branches that were on my property. They placed the ladder at the edge of the property and reached over our fence to cut branches. The fact is they were working in the best interest of the other property owner (a developer), and gave not a thought about us. They removed the entire center branch of the city tree and it was at least 8″ in diameter.
I’m reminded of an old Joni Mitchell song, “Cut Down The Trees…”
Thanks for correcting me, Julie. It was the UTC.
The issues of balancing rights and obligations of property owners came up again that night with a separate item to require inspections of water/sewer connections whenever a house is sold. There are a number of other requirements home sellers must comply with, e.g., smoke detectors, Title V, etc., but this would be unique to Newton. It will detect illegal connections and broken lines, and will add some cost for inspections, and even more costs if problems are detected during inspection. (I have advocated for getting state approval of special legislation because this requirement would be unique in the state.) There is no doubt in my mind this would be a public benefit, but it may come as a shock to homeowners when and if it is approved.