Correction, September 26, 2026: This article said we found no tree ordinance on any posted Revere council agenda. That was wrong. A motion by Councillors Joanne McKenna and Jim Mercurio ordering a public hearing on a tree preservation ordinance was item 20 at the council’s September 14 meeting, and the hearing is September 28. We also removed two statements we could not source: a typical 30-to-60-day insurer deadline, and a comparison of Revere’s tree canopy with the rest of Greater Boston. Our full report on the proposal.
A Revere resident wrote this week that the city is considering requiring approval or a permit before a homeowner can remove a tree on private property, and asked whether anyone had thought about what that means for owners whose insurance company has told them to take a tree down or lose coverage. The post tagged Councillor Jeffrey Rosario Turco in the post. A commenter noted that Lynnfield already has a version of the rule: take a tree down and you must plant the same number elsewhere on your lot.
What we could and could not find
We looked for the proposal in the city’s September meeting agendas and did not find a tree ordinance on any posted council agenda this month. That does not mean it does not exist. Revere council items often surface first as a motion by a single councillor, referred to a subcommittee, before any ordinance text is drafted. Whether a tree removal motion or ordinance has actually been filed, and where it stands, is not yet clear from Revere’s published agendas.
The insurance problem is real
The resident’s point deserves an answer whichever way the council goes. Insurers do send homeowners notices demanding that a tree be removed, with a deadline attached. A permit process that takes longer than the insurer allows, or a replacement requirement that costs more than the homeowner has, puts the owner between the city and the insurer. Any ordinance would need an exception for a documented insurer demand, or for a dead or hazardous tree certified by an arborist, and the resident is right that the underlying problem belongs at the state level with the Division of Insurance.
There is a policy case for protecting mature trees. There is also a case that the city should plant them on public land before it regulates them on private land.
Our report on the council’s September 14 debate and the September 28 hearing is here. If you have received an insurer’s tree notice, write to [email protected].