Revere’s proposed tree preservation ordinance, which would require homeowners to get a permit before cutting down certain trees on their own property, is going back for a rewrite. At its public hearing Monday night, September 28, its two sponsors, Councillor-at-Large Joanne McKenna and Ward 1 Councillor Jim Mercurio, said they would pull it back and revise it, and Council President Anthony Zambuto sent it to the Legislative Affairs committee.
The hearing drew a smaller crowd than the “hundreds of people” Zambuto had predicted when the council debated the proposal on September 14, as we reported last week. Two residents spoke in favor, two spoke against, and one letter in opposition was read into the record.
For it
A Reservoir Avenue resident whose family has lived with four mature trees in the yard for 67 years said newer homeowners are paving side and rear yards for parking, and that the practice is “out of control.” The speaker said an initial “knee-jerk” objection to the city regulating private property faded after reading the draft, noting the city already regulates private property through zoning, building, health and noise rules. The speaker asked for two changes: a fee for paying into the tree fund instead of replanting that is “reasonable and fair and not punitive,” possibly with a tax offset, and clearer language on how the ordinance applies to large developments. A second resident supported the ordinance and asked the council to explain the payment-in-lieu section to the public.
Against it
A Washington Avenue resident said a two-year fight to get the city to fix a cracked new sidewalk showed the city could not be trusted with decisions about residents’ trees. A Suffolk Avenue resident pointed to the weekend nor’easter and said it is up to the property owner to decide when a tree comes down.
The letter, from a lawyer writing on behalf of a Revere family, raised the most detailed objections. It said the draft would require permits and application fees, would require replacement trees or payments into a city fund, and would set fines of $300 per tree. It objected that the draft names the city engineer, or a designee, as tree warden, a role that does not require training in arboriculture. It warned that permit delays could put homeowners in conflict with insurers who require dead or dangerous trees to come down. And it said homeowners would face stricter rules than developers who clear lots. The family asked the council to reject the ordinance or rewrite it completely.
The sponsors step back
McKenna said several councillors had been getting pushback and “feel compelled to vote this down.” McKenna said the city already enters private property for building permits and to cite high grass and debris, and that many Massachusetts cities have similar tree rules, but that the two sponsors would table it and revise it “so it’s a little bit easier for the residents to swallow.”
“I still believe we need a reasonable tree preservation ordinance in our city,” Mercurio said. “I don’t believe we should abandon this idea. I believe we should take the time to get it right.” Mercurio said the mandatory replacement provisions, the fees and the penalties all need another look.
Councillor-at-Large Marc Silvestri said, “I’m all for the tree ordinance,” but objected to new fees on residents “in a time when we’re trying to make things more affordable.”
Money for city trees
Later the same night the council voted 11-0 to move $50,000 from the Capital Improvement Stabilization Fund for citywide tree trimming, which Chief Financial Officer Richard Viscay said was meant to reach the backlog before winter. Viscay said $25,000 remains this year for planting new trees, and a councillor said the Department of Public Works plans to plant this fall and is taking requests.