Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues decision on removal of 10 ficus trees at 75 Howard, asks developer to pursue retention or equivalent canopy replacement
Summary
After lengthy testimony from neighbors, arborists, the project sponsor and Urban Forestry, the Board continued the appeal of a DPW ficus removal permit to June 28 and directed the sponsor to work with Public Works on a plan to retain trees or match canopy volume.
The Board of Appeals on May 31 continued an appeal of a Department of Public Works order authorizing removal of 10 ficus trees adjacent to 75 Howard Street and directed the project sponsor to work with Public Works and the urban forester to produce a plan to retain the existing trees or replace canopy volume. The continuance was set for June 28, 2017.
Appellant David Osgood and neighborhood groups argued the trees are healthy and that contractors and developers could reasonably adjust utilities or logistics to preserve them. “Trees can and do coexist with large construction projects,” Osgood told the board, urging alternatives to removal and citing photos of other cities that preserved mature trees during construction.
Counsel for the project sponsor said DPW and multiple certified arborists concluded several of the ficus meet city removal criteria and that construction and utility constraints make retention infeasible in some places; the sponsor proposed planting five on‑site replacement trees and paying an in‑lieu fee for the rest. “Each of the 75 Howard Ficus trees meets at least one of the removal criteria,” counsel Sarah Galindari told the board, while noting the sponsor would provide larger‑box replacements and streetscape improvements.
Chris Buck, the city’s urban forester, told commissioners the Stuart Street trees show poor structural condition while some Howard Street trees are borderline; he said ficus performance in the city has a history of limb failure that informs DPW’s criteria. Commissioners questioned the site constraints diagrams, vault locations and whether utilities could be relocated to allow more plantings. Inspector testimony and two competing arborist reports were entered into the record.
Given extensive public concern and technical questions about utility and construction constraints, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to continue the matter to June 28 and directed the sponsor to present a plan that either sustains the current trees or replaces them to reflect existing canopy/volume; the motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: project sponsor and Public Works will coordinate in the coming weeks to identify whether additional on‑site trees can be preserved or whether replacement strategies and in‑lieu payments must be finalized; the item returns to the Board on 06/28/2017.
