Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscape Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press planning board over tree cutting, erosion; board schedules site visit
Summary
Residents raised long-running concerns about tree removal and hillside erosion near 25 Cannon Hill and Homestead Lane; one neighbor said contractors removed roughly 25 trees and saplings, while the homeowner denied removing live trees. The board agreed to an on-site inspection, enforcement measurements and to delineate the no‑cut buffer.
Neighbors at a Groveland subdivision pressed the Planning Board on June 16 over alleged excessive tree cutting and resulting erosion that a resident said is exposing tree roots and harming the downhill portion of his property.
Craig Weaver of 25 Cannon Hill told the board that an earlier approval to remove 14 dead trees became “25 trees that were cut” when contractors entered the buffer area, removed saplings and undergrowth, and pruned or removed additional trees. "When they got in there, the total was 25 trees that were cut on there," Weaver said, adding that a stringed pink line that once marked the 30-foot no-cut buffer is now unclear and that fence posts had been moved inward, narrowing the buffer in places to as little as 17 feet.
Homeowner Jamison Pelkey of 6 Homestead Lane responded that the family had cut only dead trees and pruned branches that posed a safety risk to children. "We have not leveled any live trees. We've pruned stuff that's falling on our property and limbs that have come down," Pelkey said, and invited board members to inspect his yard in person.
The board acknowledged the dispute's history and the limits of adjudicating such claims without on-site verification. Members recommended asking the highway superintendent/tree warden and the town’s enforcement officer to measure and document the current buffer boundary and the condition of the hillside. The chair said the board would schedule a site visit with both homeowners, invite the enforcement officer (Sam) to measure, and request any missing memorandum of decision and plan sheets to clarify the recorded no-cut zone.
Board members also discussed permanently delineating the buffer (for example with granite bounds or survey stakes) so the boundary is unambiguous for future owners. The board asked staff to coordinate the site meeting and to request updated documentation from the subdivision developer and from town files.
Next steps: staff will arrange the on-site inspection with enforcement staff and the homeowners, obtain photographs and measurements, and report findings back to the board for a possible enforcement or remedial recommendation.
