I’ve written about large-scale tree-cutting to clear lots for construction. A less obvious way that trees can be lost to construction is trees that remain but are damaged by the construction itself, either through direct hits, or by storage of heavy equipment or materials in the root zone. The Tree Preservation Ordinance Sec. 20-33(e) prohibits storing materials or equipment under the drip line of a protected private tree. The Public Tree Ordinance Sec. 20-72 prohibits the same for public trees as follows:
(i) Construction: Except as provided in a tree permit, construction activities on city-owned property and public right of ways under the drip line of a public tree or public shade tree are prohibited. Prohibited construction activities include, but are not limited to, trenching or grading, storage of materials or equipment, passage of heavy equipment within the drip line and spillage of chemicals or other materials, which are damaging to trees.
I got home around 1am to find a violation of the latter on my street, Murray Road. I can’t imagine how heavy a fully-loaded heavy-duty truck is, but that much weight can damage tree roots, and in this case it was sitting there from about 5pm yesterday (which is when the driver said they knocked off work) until it was moved at 8am this morning. The Newton Police wrote a citation last night for commercial vehicle parking over two hours, but the fine for that is only $25. A lot of contractors would probably rather pay the $25 than drive their equipment back to, in this case, Gardner, or to a legal overnight spot. It’s also a violation to park on a sidewalk but that fine is only $15.
Fortunately, the Public Tree Ordinance provides for a $300/day fine, so if you see this type of activity, day or night, affecting private or public trees, you can check with Marc Welch at Parks & Rec Division of Urban Forestry to find out if they need and have a permit (in the case of private trees) or have a permit (in the case of public trees). Note: one gap in public tree protection, which the Urban Tree Commission and others would like to see rectified, is that there is no protection for the portion of the area under the drip line of public trees that is on private property.
The H. Ellis truck did get moved at 8am. The driver/owner said he was told by R.A. Franchi, which appears to be the general contractor, to just park his trunk in front of the R.A. Franchi excavator (which the Newton police officer told me he could not ticket for overnight parking because it’s not an on-road vehicle with a plate). There seem to be problems here beyond the Public Tree Ordinance violation.
This is a nice posting that gets to serious concerns about damage to curbside trees that are city property, but it also should be noted that developers routinely ignore city ordinances in clear-cutting lots and cutting down mature trees without adequate replacement of those trees. Take the example of the recent construction of 187 Pine Ridge Rd (really on Beacon Street) and its controversial (some would say blatantly illegal) sister construction at 197 Pine Ridge. The developer cut down at least 6-10 fully mature trees on the Beacon street lot, and then on the Pine Ridge lot, ringed a number of others in concrete after digging up most of their root structures. Not surprisingly, these properties now have at least 4-5 fully grown dead trees that will need to come down. This is yet another example of the City administration not holding developers accountable to the rules set by the Board of Aldermen.
Just passed by a house at the corner of Comm and Dartmouth that is being prepped for demolition. Many trees came down this morning. The “de-greening” of Newton….
Paul, the recent tightening of the language in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, passed by the Board of Aldermen on May 5, while it would not have prevented a developer doing what was done on Pine Ridge or in other examples, would at least require them to plant or pay for replacement caliper inches. That may discourage tree removal and result in more trees being preserved, instead of being removed for the convenience of the developer. The ordinance now defines ‘occupied’ and it’s much harder to claim exemption. This is a comparison of the prior and current applicability (Right-click to open in new window): http://village14.com/files/2014/04/Tree_Ordinance_Change_Summary.pdf
Thanks, NativeNewtonian. I have ‘before’ pictures of that one.
It won’t help the route structure but Cambridge requires (in some way shape or form) that 2×4’s be tied to the trunk in some fashion during the course of any work on the property (this is many street trees but I think I have seen examples on private property. It might be a good idea to research this and see if we can adopt something similar…also pretty easy to enforce. Thanks for pointing this issue out, it is a big deal…
That would be “root structure”…. darn you spelling!
@John_on_Central, I would like to see better protection, too, and more care taken generally. We had a Newton Tree Conservancy tree that had only been in the ground about two years just run over as if it wasn’t even there, in the course of a house demolition on Webster Street. And across the street from that more recently, a larger pear badly scraped by something while construction was going on. That tree was okay through most of the construction period because the construction area was contained by a chain link fence, and there’s no parking on the north side of Webster, but at some point a vehicle must have pulled up there for a delivery after the fence was down.
I saw great tree protection a year or so ago on Homer Street opposite the War Memorial side of City Hall. Not even 2x4s. It looked like that lathe and wire fencing you see approaching sand dune beaches, maybe a little heavier duty, wrapped around the trunks of several trees up to the lowest branches. They came through the construction looking fine.
Around here, city plows and utility crews have done far more damage than construction crews.
I woke up this weekend to the sound of chainsaws taking down some huge trees on Temple street. There are some sad looking stumps left behind.
I just drove by those. Putnam St side, right? Had already heard about them.