Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents present draft tree-preservation ordinance to Board of Selectmen, prompting enforcement and scope questions
Summary
A resident-led team presented a proposed tree-preservation ordinance that would limit clear-cutting, raise specimen-tree review thresholds, require tree surveys and replacement plans, and create a town tree fund; selectmen asked for more detail on enforcement, staffing, and private-property exemptions.
Fran Brady, a resident organizer, presented a draft tree-preservation ordinance to the Board of Selectmen on Oct. 28, arguing the town is losing canopy and that a balanced ordinance could protect notable trees while respecting private-property rights.
Brady described three principal elements of the proposed ordinance: (1) a per-acre allowance of roughly six trees removable without a permit (for example, a 2-acre lot could remove 12 trees without permitting), (2) a specimen-tree threshold increased in the draft to an 18-inch diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) for review and potential permitting, and (3) an inch-for-inch replacement calculation so that a removed larger tree would be replaced by several smaller trees (Brady described, by example, replacing a 24-inch tree with six 4-inch trees).
Brady emphasized exemptions intended to limit regulatory burden: trees certified as hazardous or dead by a licensed arborist or the tree warden would not require the same review; trees in Striking Distance of structures would be eligible for expedited removal if verified as hazardous. The proposal also includes establishing a town tree fund to accept payment in lieu of on-site replacement where planting space is not available.
Board members raised implementation questions: who would administer permits and reviews, potential costs to homeowners for tree surveys (Brady cited a Hartford forester’s estimate of about $300–$350 for a survey/expert review), and how a volunteer advisory committee might be used without imposing undue burden on staff. Some board members framed the measure as primarily aimed at preventing pre-application clear-cutting by developers and improving review during Planning and Zoning processes.
Speakers from the Conservation Commission and residents in public comment supported stronger protections and public education to accompany any ordinance. The board did not vote on the ordinance; members asked staff to return a draft for additional review and to coordinate with legal counsel and relevant boards.
