Planners Eye Revised Tree Bylaw for Spring Town Meeting

This article appeared in the January 20, 2021 edition of The Lynnfield Villager and is reprinted in its entirety here. 

By DAN TOMASELLO

A group of residents weighed in on proposed changes to the Tree Protection Bylaw during the Planning Board’s January 13 meeting.

Planning Board Chairman Brian Charville recalled that last October’s Town Meeting voted to indefinitely postpone the Tree Bylaw after the Planning and Conservation Department heard a number of concerns raised by residents in the lead up to Town Meeting. While the revised bylaw is still being fleshed out, he said the Planning Board’s goal is to present a revamped version at Spring Town Meeting. What we are looking to do is go back to basics a little bit,” said Charville. “We heard a lot of concerns folks had leading up to Town Meeting, and we decided to step back and extend the process.”

Willowby Way resident Susan Tomich said she is concerned about the bylaw being too restrictive. After last October’s Town Meeting, she reviewed similar tree bylaws in Concord, Lexington, Newton and Wellesley that served as the inspiration for Lynnfield’s version. “These four towns have tree bylaws that are much less restrictive than what Lynnfield is proposing,” said Tomich. “When the bylaw was proposed, I think everybody in town panicked. There were people taking down trees all around my neighborhood because they thought this was going to pass. It was really a shame.” Tomich also said the town needs to be “careful about planting too many trees” because of forest fire concerns. She inquired if the town has information about the town’s tree cover percentage. “It would be interesting to have that number,” said Tomich. Planning and Conservation Director Emilie Cademartori said she does not have that information, but said there is software that can be used to determine the town’s tree cover percentage. Charville asked Cademartori to use the software to calculate the percentage.

Charville also noted that the replacement rate in the originally proposed bylaw called for replacing every inch cut with another inch. “As we looked at other towns since October, some do half an inch for every inch,” said Charville. “That is something we are going to look at. We are going to have examples of what it will cost to replace a certain size tree.”

Cademartori said the proposed bylaw does not prohibit trees from being cut down. She said residents will have the option to either replace a certain size tree that meets specific criteria or they can make a payment to the proposed tree fund. She said the town would use the fund in order to plant trees in a different location. “We never intended that the bylaw would prevent trees from being cut down,” said Cademartori. “You can clear-cut your lot if you want, it would just be expensive to replace and mitigate.”

Locksley Road resident Patrick Curley said he has noticed a lot of trees being clear-cut after homes in the Sherwood Forest neighborhood were sold. “The character of the neighborhood does change over time,” said Curley. “These are not acres of giant plots, these are people’s homes. From my wife and I’s standpoint, we would like to see a Tree Bylaw that helps limit that on some level. I think the challenge for the Planning Board is figuring out what is reasonable so we can get it passed.” Curley also urged the Planning Board to launch a public awareness campaign leading up to Town Meeting.

Phillips Road resident Joe Gallagher said people were confused about the proposed Tree Protection and the Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Bylaws at October Town Meeting. He urged the Planning Board to post frequently asked questions about the bylaw on the town’s website. “I think there should be a campaign to educate people so it doesn’t come off as a surprise,” said Gallagher. “I think there is an appetite in town to preserve trees and stop over development.”

Charville said the Planning Board will be discussing the bylaw at its monthly meetings in order to help inform residents about it before Town Meeting. He also said the Planning Board is going to post more information about the revised bylaw on the town’s website. He said the board is looking to include an informational flyer in the next quarter’s tax bills as well.

Planning Board member Kate Flaws said she appreciated the suggestions raised by Curley and Gallagher because she noted it has been a challenge educating the public even though information about the bylaw has been published in newspapers, social media, the town’s website and has been repeatedly discussed during meetings. “This is a larger conversation in local government about how do we get information to people in a way that is useful,” said Flaws. “Any suggestions are appreciated.”

Planning Board member Ed Champy said the concerns about over development in town is a “zoning issue and not a Planning Board issue.” He said the root cause to the tree-cutting problem appears to be developers as opposed to residents. “We need to understand who is the biggest culprit,” said Champy. “If we can eliminate the threat to the rest of the group, then we can get a winning vote.”

Planning Board Vice Chairman Michael Sheehan agreed. “Our initial swipe at it had a broader approach,” said Sheehan. “Taking a less restrictive approach could certainly allow us to gain more votes, but it will protect less trees. I think these building events are something we should focus on moving forward.”

Durham Drive resident Beth Aaronson said residents in her neighborhood have been cutting down trees on their properties on a regular basis. “It’s not just developers,” said Aaronson. “We have less tree cover than when I moved here.”

Fernway resident Bobby Williams noted that he works as an architect and has appeared before planning boards in different communities. He said the revised bylaw should seek to limit developers and house flippers from clear-cutting trees. “Finding ways to regulate those people instead of residents will help get this passed,” said Williams.

Cranberry Lane resident Page Wilkins reiterated her support for the Tree Protection Bylaw. She proposed that the Planning Board revisit the fee structure included in the bylaw as well as penalties for people who get fined for violating it. “If we do something based on building and demolition, we might not even need the penalties,” said Wilkins. “We did a large project with our neighbor this summer. By the time you add up taking down and replanting 20 trees of a good size, it costs a lot.”

Merrow Road resident Ken MacNulty recalled that residents are often against proposals that are perceived as “another tax.” However, he noted that the residents who spoke in favor of the town acquiring the Richardson Green property on upper Main Street during a recent Select Board public hearing said they supported the project because they want to preserve trees. “I think this will pass if it gets explained right and gets presented in a way that makes sense,” said MacNulty.

The Planning Board will continue discussing the Tree Protection Bylaw on Wednesday, Feb. 3, beginning at 7 p.m.

“We are seeking public comments because we want to do something for the town,” said Sheehan.