At a public listening session in Powers Hall, Town of Needham officials and residents raised alarm about an apparent rise in tree removals tied to housing teardowns and redevelopment and discussed a range of responses, from a formal tree bylaw to incentives and public education.

The session, convened by the Tree Committee and moderated by Select Board member Heidi Freyal, was framed as a listening forum: "The most important thing we think we can do right now is listen to the community and what you want regarding trees," Freyal said. Committee members, town staff and about two dozen online participants broke into small groups before returning for reports and an open-microphone public comment period.

Residents described recurring themes: clear-cutting of parcels for redevelopment, loss of large mature trees and canopy, and neighborhood impacts including loss of privacy and increased runoff. Naomi Ribner, a Riverside Street resident, said developers have cut large stands of trees near her home and that replacements were not required in some recent approvals: "It kills me to see my street, which was so green, turn into some inner-city street. When you cut down all the trees in a neighborhood, you have irrevocably changed the personality and character of that neighborhood." Rob Bridal, a Lawton Road resident, urged the committee to avoid unintended consequences that would punish homeowners who are already investing to preserve trees, saying higher compliance costs may push owners to sell to developers.

Committee and staff responses focused on several policy strands that emerged from table reports. Josh Levy, a Select Board member and participant in the stormwater bylaw working group, and other facilitators highlighted proposals that recurred across tables: requiring developers to meet with the tree warden as a condition of demolition or building permits, stronger enforcement of illegal removals, incentives for developers and homeowners to retain trees, and improved replacement standards so planted saplings better offset removed mature trees. "If it's related mainly to building projects, make it a condition of the demolition or building permit that the developer meet with the tree warden and the tree warden signs off on that plan," Levy said.

Discussion also emphasized outreach and data. Several speakers asked for a visible town dashboard or inventory showing canopy change and the status of public and private trees. Peter Atala, a resident, noted that a prior town meeting article funded a public-tree study but suggested the committee consider how private-tree losses could be tracked as well. Online participants and in-person groups repeatedly called for clearer public guidance on what species to plant, where to plant them, and how tree-planting programs work.

Funding and incentives were another recurring idea. Jim Glickman pointed to the Newton Tree Conservancy as a model for private fundraising that supplements municipal tree programs and urged study of peer towns' approaches. Several tables proposed an adoption or donation program—residents donating to plant trees in public areas with optional plaques—and expanding the town's planting program to allow plantings further into private yards by request.

Technical and species questions came up in multiple comments. Marian LeMay, a master gardener, urged the town to prioritize native species and to place understory trees under utility lines so utilities need not later prune or remove large trees, saying native trees better support local biodiversity. Ed Olsen, supervisor of parks and forestry, described current planting practice as aimed at diversity and noted operational constraints: "We don't use primarily native species just because we want diversity. So we do dozens and dozens of different species." Participants asked the committee to publish existing planting principles and guidelines online so homeowners can follow them.

Speakers also debated the mix of regulatory and voluntary tools. Holly Clark, a resident, argued for a bylaw with teeth and suggested tying review triggers into the project lifecycle so developers would be required to plan for and account for trees early in design. At the same time, Rob Bridal and others warned that strict permitting requirements and added costs for homeowners could create fairness and property-value issues unless carefully tailored.

The Tree Committee signaled next steps that are procedural rather than legislative: the committee will debrief the forum, compile resident comments into an FAQ, and use the feedback to define goals and options for tree preservation work. Gabby Queenan, the town sustainability manager, summarized online feedback and the shared themes: loss of large trees, interest in incentives and education, and a desire to avoid full clear-cutting of lots. The committee encouraged continuing input via email to otm@needhamma.gov and by signing up for the Tree Committee news alerts on the town website.

No formal votes or regulatory actions were taken at the forum. The committee repeatedly noted that public trees are governed by Massachusetts state law and that the town's authority over private trees is limited until new bylaws or regulations are adopted. The session highlighted broad community support for action and a range of policy options that the Tree Committee and town staff plan to study further.