Springfield committee vets Woodlands Ordinance draft; agrees edits, next steps

Councilor Zaida Govan, the only councilor in attendance at the Environmental and Sustainability Committee meeting, led a detailed review of a draft Woodlands Ordinance with city attorneys, Forestry Division staff and community groups, focusing on definitions, size thresholds, a proposed look-back period and commission membership.

The review centered on language the city attorney said could create ambiguity and on where the ordinance should reference the city’s climate work. Committee members and community representatives said they want the ordinance to protect remaining wooded lots while avoiding unintended legal exposure or overlap with other city processes.

Ken Shea, city council attorney, recommended removing a sentence in the draft findings that he said is unnecessary because “anytime you're drafting an ordinance or any law, the fewer words and statements you can make, the easier it is to interpret and and enforce it.” Shea also advised deleting a multi-sentence definition of “global climate mitigation,” calling it a set of “weasel words” that could invite litigation or expand the ordinance beyond its intent.

Jay, a SCANS representative, and others said they understand the concern but want explicit linkage to Springfield’s Climate Action and Resilience Plan. Jay noted that “we don't actually use the term global climate change mitigation anywhere in the ordinance” and suggested putting a concise climate-oriented phrase into the findings so the ordinance's intent is clear without importing broad, vague definitions.

The group debated which parcel sizes the ordinance should cover. The draft included multiple numbers: a definition of woodland as an area of 15,000 square feet or more and an applicability threshold of parcels greater than 5,000 square feet. Alex Sherman and others said the committee previously discussed a 10,000-square-foot threshold; SCANS advocated for a 5,000-square-foot threshold to capture smaller residential wooded lots that have been subject to clear-cutting. Committee members said 5,000 was the working target, acknowledging negotiations with councilors and developers are likely.

Members discussed a “look-back” provision intended to stop landowners from preemptively clear-cutting in the weeks before the ordinance is considered. The draft uses a 48-month look-back window; committee members asked staff to tighten that language and to clarify whether the provision would preserve the parcel’s canopy as of a date 48 months before a permit application.

Committee members also asked the attorney to add a notification requirement for abutters when a woodland removal permit is filed. Amy, representing SCANS, described a recent large clear-cut on Tinkham Road near Macedonia Church that prompted neighborhood concern; several members recommended adding abutter notice language similar to what the planning board uses (examples mentioned were 100 or 300 feet) so neighbors would be informed when a woody-vegetation removal application is pending.

On governance, the draft establishes an Urban Woodlands Commission with seven members. The current draft splits appointments among the office of planning and development, the Forestry Division, one city council appointee and multiple mayoral appointees. Members asked staff to ensure the commission's qualification language emphasizes “requisite ability and training or experience in woodlands conservation” so appointees are demonstrably qualified; the committee discussed reducing Forestry Division appointees to one and increasing community seats so residents outnumber city entity appointees.

No formal vote or ordinance adoption occurred at the meeting. Instead the committee identified next steps: Shea agreed to redraft and tighten definitions and the look-back clause, add proposed abutter-notification language drawn from existing zoning and permit practices, and coordinate with department leadership (Tom Ash was named as a department head staff should brief). Councilor Govan said she plans to meet with the mayor with SCANS representatives to seek the mayor’s support before the draft goes before the full City Council. Govan closed by saying the group hopes to move the ordinance forward quickly: “we're hoping to be able to, you know, push these through hopefully before the end of summer so we can start saving our trees.”

The discussion combined legal caution about drafting precise, defensible ordinance language with community-driven goals to protect urban woodlands and improve notification to neighbors. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that edits should avoid expanding the ordinance’s scope beyond woodland protection while still making its climate and conservation intent clear.