Committee tables decision on Norway maple at 67 Bridges Court, orders level‑2 assessment

The Portsmouth Trees & Public Greenery Committee on July 8 deferred a final decision on removing a Norway maple at 67 Bridges Court, voting to obtain an additional professional assessment before proceeding.

Staff reported that city staff and Eversource met with neighbors and presented three technical options: burying the lines (costly and requiring a ground‑mounted transformer), upgrading and adding poles (which would preserve the tree but require additional infrastructure), or removing the tree and replacing the pole in the same footprint, with small ornamental replacements planted next spring. Residents at the site meeting, staff said, preferred removal in order to avoid adding another pole in the right‑of‑way.

Resident Steven Barndler questioned whether the transformer and poles could be sited differently and whether the city had sufficient easement width; staff said there is a property pin about 6–7 feet from the road edge and that underground conduit currently serves two homes. Staff also said they could not specify transformer dimensions at the meeting.

Committee discussion reflected differing views on risk and preservation. One committee member described the tree as “rotten,” citing visible internal decay pockets and previous topping and poor pruning cuts decades earlier. Staff and another arborist emphasized that retrenchment pruning or cabling would likely be a limited, temporary remedy given the extent of internal decay and the tree’s structural condition.

An initial motion to approve removal was recorded as passing by a vocal count, but additional members then expressed opposition. The committee voted to reconsider and then voted to table the removal request. The motion to table instructed staff to obtain additional professional input, specifically to arrange a level‑2, hands‑on ‘track’ assessment with community forester Liz McKinley (a certified arborist) or a comparable third party, and to revisit the item at the next meeting.

The committee’s next steps: staff will schedule the level‑2 assessment, report back with the findings and any measured data, and bring the item back for a full vote. The committee emphasized safety of nearby residences and the need to weigh preservation against foreseeable failure risk.

The committee framed this outcome as a pause for more data rather than a final endorsement of removal or retention; the item remains under active consideration.