The Programs and Services Committee held the two tree ordinance amendment items (see Revised Report and watch the video on NewTV and note this was previously reported here):
- Request to revise and amend Chapter 21, Art. III Trees (Sect. 21-60 through 21-89) to extend tree protection to all trees 6 inches DBH (diameter at breast height) and greater within the City (with no exempt lots); to update tree removal permits, fees, and compensation; and to strengthen protection for existing and replacement trees (Councilor version).
- Request to review and amend Chapter 21, Art. III, Division e, Tree Preservation to increase replacement requirements for larger trees, add protections for smaller trees, limit removal of trees without replacement, enhance procedures for protecting trees, increasing payment required for trees cut without replacement, protect trees on lots adjacent to construction, provide Tree Warden with additional professional input on trees on private properties (Administration proposal).
NOTE: The revised report includes details of the discussion, which was focused on the following:
- Abutter Notification: A straw vote of 6-2 (Councilors Wright and Baker Opposed) was taken regarding notifying just direct abutters when a Tree Permit application is filed
- Environmental Mitigation Payments and Payment in Lieu of Planting: Committee members took a straw vote of 5-3 (Councilors Wright, Humphrey, and Baker Opposed) to not adopting the Environmental Mitigation Payment. Later in the discussion, the Committee adopted the first 5 years of tree maintenance be part of the basis for payment in lieu of planting via unanimous consent.
- Commissioner of Inspectional Services notification of commencement of Exterior Work: Councilors unanimously adopted the City proposal as Tree Warden, Marc Welch reported that this is current practice.
- Suspension or Revocation: Due to potential conflict with State Building Codes, Councilor version amended “and the Commissioner of Inspectional Services may review a suspension or revocation of a tree permit for consideration of issuing a stop-work order or to withhold the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.” Straw vote: 8-0.
- Appeal Process: Difference in Administration’s proposal – Mayor would seek input and consult with the Ward Councilor in which the trees are located vs. Councilor proposal – decision made by Mayor and councilors from the ward with guidance on safety and tree well-being and notification of appeal decision sent to abutters. Committee supported Mayor to seek input and consult councilors from the ward and to be guided by safety and well-being and abutter notification of appeal.
- Conditions of Replacement Tree Species and Hedges: Both proposals would not count hedges as replacement trees but Administration’s proposal would allow Tree Warden discretion. Straw vote to support Adminstration’s version contingent on Tree Warden’s presentation of draft hedge definition.
- Sections 21-83(d), 21-83(f), 21-84(a), 21-84(b), 21-85(b)(2), and 21-85(b)(3): All provisions were same in both and were unanimously adopted in straw poll.
