[Nicole Morell]: We have the whole meeting notice Wednesday, March 8 2023 at 6.30pm is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. By present to absent, the meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, March 8th, 2023 at 6.30 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed tree ordinance, paper 19-070. The Committee of the Whole has invited DPW Commissioner Tim McGibbon, Tree Warden Aggie Tudin, Alicia Hunt, Director of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, and Building Commissioner Bill Forty to attend the meeting. For further information, aids and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, council president. So just to bring everyone up to speed on kind of where we are, this paper was just reported out from the sustainability subcommittee where we reviewed comments that have been made from attorney Stein back, I believe over this, I think actually like a year ago at this point. We had some comments from Commissioner McGibbon on, sorry, this is all in a draft ordinance that's available on the city council drive. We also reported out a number of questions and I shared answers with the council. I also have them, I can read them back if anyone needs them. And then also actually a late update is when we had last worked on this, one of the motions the council, so before the subcommittee, the council had motion to separate out of the proposed ordinance to separate the establishment of the tree committee to separate the public shade trees and keep that separate from the private shade trees. And that's something that actually the acting chief of staff, Emily had worked on over the summer. And I think that got a little bit lost in the ether and that was delivered to us this week. So that was also shared with the council. None of these are final documents, they're still works in progress. But I think having this separated out is something we've requested. And then if I could just speak from the chair, just a few kind of process and opinions about where we go from here. So I mean, in short, we have before us is an ordinance for what seems like a simple problem, but has many pathways to potential solutions. And in my opinion, a lot of these are affected by capacity we have in the city to actually enforce I think that we've seen in other communities. If you put something like this on the books and you don't have the capacity to enforce it, even if you do, sometimes people may get spooked and they start taking down trees, which is exactly what we're trying to get people not to do. So I think, in my opinion, it's really helpful tonight to have to hear from the building commissioner to hear from the PDS director to hear from Commissioner McGivern to understand the capacity their departments may have to enforce some version of this to help to meet these goals. We're trying to protect our tree canopy and ideally grow our tree canopy, but just seeing what we can do. As has been made clear by the ordinances that are separated, MGL is fairly explicit in the protection of public shade trees. We had talked in the past of maybe going a little bit farther to protect our public shade trees or add some more parts of that process. And then I think, We do have, we've gone back and forth. I know Commissioner Gibran has opinions on it, but we have opinions from Attorney Stein and KP Law just about what a city can and can't do with regards to protecting private trees. I was actually looking around and I know what was presented to us came from a lot of work by the Energy Environment Committee, as well as meant for trees. But I was also looking around at Arlington and their tree ordinance actually is very explicit related to construction. It's about clear cutting and kind of those projects where you might take down a bunch of trees and talking about permitting and enforcement related to that, as opposed to perhaps the one-offs of people making changes in their own backyard. So my hope is tonight that we can get to something that is workable, take us a little bit out of the weeds and also just understand what we can actually enforce, what we have the capacity for in this city to protect our tree canopy, but also be real about what we can do in the city. So that's just kind of my opening preamble. I'm happy to hand it off to Councilors for any discussion. And then I think I'd like to hear from our city staff as far as their additional feedback with regards to the proposed ordinance in front of us. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Just to start out, I appreciate sort of your framing of where we're at with this ordinance. And of course, I know that a lot of A lot of people from constituent groups and across City Hall, and behind this rail have put a lot of work into this ordinance now ordinances in front of us so I really appreciate all of that, all of the effort that's gone into this so far. I think you're of course right to center this on our actual goals with this ordinance and I think you know it's never a bad time to reevaluate, how can we best actually achieve those goals. You know, I'll say for myself, I think that I was really glad we broke this into three pieces. It just made sense to have, you know, look at where we can strengthen our public shade tree regulations, which are already promulgated at the state level. It made sense to separate out the tree committee into its separate ordinance because that is consistent with how we have created other committees that we create by ordinance. And as for, I think what's probably the trickiest part of all this and has been, has seemed to be the trickiest part is what to do with trees on private lands. It's my impression, of course, we're going to hear more about this, that that's where we've been running up against a lot of these capacity and implementation questions from city staff. I was reviewing my notes from our last meeting I think in October and some constituent feedback and I know we've been, we were talking a lot about how to really target this at avoiding clear cutting sort of the area of greatest need in terms of how can we use this ordinance to make sure that we're avoiding those instances where lots of trees are felt. And also how can we avoid sort of unduly penalizing individual owner occupiers for taking on small number of trees, or rather how to strike that right balance between actually disincentivizing developers from taking down large numbers of trees without creating something that's punitive for individual residents. So I think that we have a great start here, at least in, you know, a document that kind of tries to enshrine those goals, but I'm open to other strategies for actually attaining them. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. my only comments are procedural. If we could maybe go through and say maybe, I don't know if we want to start or end with the easiest one, but maybe start with public trees, then talk about private trees, then talk about the tree committee, or maybe talk about the tree committee, then the public trees, then the private trees. I'm not sure what order is best, but just keep discussion discreetly to each specific ordinance. I think that'll help keep the conversations more focused. Whichever order is- Does anybody have a preference?
[Nicole Morell]: happy to take public trees first. Um, so the document before us, I think this was this was separated out from the draft ordinance that we've been working on for over a year now, two years. The Public Tree Preservation Protection and Replacement Ordinance, Chapter 86, Article 3 of the City of Medford Ordinance is hereby amended. So the current section is deleted in its entirety and the new sections are hereby adopted. So this ordinance is enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting both public shade trees and trees otherwise located on public property and set forth herein. A mature canopy maintains the natural beauty of Medford for ultimate joy. today and future generations and protects the community in critically important ways. It reduces energy consumption and ambient summertime temperatures, air pollution, flooding, and soil erosion. It provides privacy, absorbs noise, and boosts mental health. It supports wildlife and increases resilience to climate change. Protecting the city's tree canopy is less than essential community function and public purpose. This protection requires the city to manage its urban forests. To achieve this purpose, this ordinance outlines the procedure that the tree warden will use to regulate the removal and replacement of certain circumstances. The ordinance also establishes a tree fund to supplement the city budget for public tree maintenance, trees planting, stump removal, and tree planting site preparation, as well as to fund a fund for city residents to petition to fund private tree maintenance. So I think that actually is the biggest kind of add here that's different is establishing that tree fund. If you've not had in the past, sorry, I'm going to Councilor Scarpelli, I apologize. Councilor Scarpelli. Um, you just made it yourself.
[George Scarpelli]: Just wanted to say I was present. Thank you. Apologize.
[Nicole Morell]: Oh, got it. The clerk has you. Thank you, Constable. Um, so, yeah, so I think really the biggest thing we're looking at, um, with regards to the public tree, um, section of this ordinance, again, understanding that this is fairly explicit at the state level, is establishing that tree fund. If we go through, we just have some strikethrough where it's removing the definition of a code enforcement officer because that's defined elsewhere in our ordinances. Construction permit is just not the right term, so that suggests to be struck as well. And then I think we had this adjusted to strike a tree protection mitigation plan, which would be a plan submitted to the code enforcement officer for approval prior to the demolition and construction of property. So I think this is because that would be related to private trees is my understanding. And then I think adjusting the tree warden definition, because that is defined at the state level as well as metrics ordinances already. So, I mean, this is really, just updating and bringing to President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Madam President. No, yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I was happy to go after, but I think this section, so A, some of these comments, I know these were split up, but have folks had a chance to review these as separated, for example, just to Commissioner McGivern. I remember this first comment, the very real impacts to DPW in this proposed ordinance. Was this based on when they were all in the same ordinance? Or is that still a relevant comment to now this kind of pared down just the public tree ordinance?
[Tim McGivern]: comment would supply I have had a chance to review these three separated I'll just put them on. I mean that's it seems like that's what was done is that the one large ordinance was broken into three, and I see some strikeouts and things like that but in general my comments still are the same. Yeah, human resources associated with the work in this. And then the other category of comments would be the legality of the private tree part and I know you want to talk about them separate so yeah, that's fine. Then I also noticed just in the public tree section, it mirrors chapter 87, which is I think the right thing. And there are just, you know, some questions I have about like 30 days requirement for stump removal. There's one other thing. Just requirements that we put out there for ordinance that, you know, the city then would be obligated to follow and it doesn't necessarily align with procedures that we currently use. So, you know, comments like that, which are, I think are more minor and can be worked out, but those two broad categories of comments that I have, I think are significant.
[Zac Bears]: So anyway. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to make sure I was reading the right stuff and referring it to the right parts of the split up ordinances. Madam President, I guess question for you. You're happy to answer it. I don't like that would just be relative to basically the two things that this public tree ordinance would do is, or maybe it's three things that would provide an intent and purposes to the article three trees ordinance currently on the books beyond just the single section that says you need permission to cut or trim a tree and provide a set of definitions. And then is, and this could be, well, I'll ask you and then maybe ask Commissioner McIver. 8693, so this would create a tree removal permit and outline the process by ordinance. And then I guess my question is in terms of the tree fund, This says it's in the definitions and account established pursuant to this ordinance, but do we want to include a section that says what the tree fund is or is that, I'm just, it seems like it might be, I don't know, I just don't see it here.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, no, I think that's, I think I would agree with that as far as, yeah, because right now it just establishes an account. It's kind of a circular definition where it says the account established and it says by the ordinance amendment. the definition references that as well. So it's a little bit of a circular definition. So I would be curious, just as Commissioner McGibbon spoke, with the exception of the 30 days for the stump removal, is there anything in this 86-93 that is outside what's already being done? I think some of this is an attempt to codify the process that exists already. So just like the approval, you know,
[Tim McGivern]: The other one was the replacement of trees with native trees within a year whenever possible. Maintain an updated inventory of all public trees, removals, and stumps. It says the city shall maintain or will maintain. We're working on that, but we're not done. And then, you know, when trees are replaced, obviously, there would be just need to be some sort of a process which wouldn't necessarily need to be ordinance, but a process to update the database.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. But as far as the the written approval, the approval criteria. This is all, this is already going on.
[Tim McGivern]: In the public piece, yeah. The public piece, besides like the fund you were talking about in those two pieces, at my first reading of this separation, those stood out to me as different from chapter 87. The rest of it seems to be pretty consistent with chapter 87.
[Nicole Morell]: And is there, you know, in your opinion, do you think, a time period for stump removal is reasonable to put in this, you know, whether it's, or is that something that shouldn't exist in this because your department prioritizes based on a number of issues?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, I think maybe there is a clarification between who this is geared toward because if say a private entity would like to remove a public tree and they do get permission from tree warden, then they would remove the tree. And I would say that, yes, within a month remove the stump as well. So I'm just reluctant to say that the city would have to require that rule because there are times when we may remove trees. And I think this is one of those times and the stumps fall behind. So we're doing tree removals, but the stumps lag and it lags much longer than 30 days.
[Nicole Morell]: So have there been instances where say a private company removes a tree and then the stump just they never remove the stump and then that becomes a city problem.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't know.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. I think it would be helpful to like be explicit about you know private companies have that some set amount of time where they have to remove it. I think Not to say if only, but I know we get a lot of calls about stumps. And if one is actually a private company, and we know they're required to remove it within a certain amount of time.
[Tim McGivern]: I would say that most of the stumps out there existing on the public right-of-ways are a result of us taking, DBW taking down trees, and then the stump removal lagging behind that. There's usually multiple factors involved, like sidewalks, for example, it's a big one. So, but there's something like this is if someone private entity gets permission from the tree warden to take down the tree to the hearing process and all that. then my presumption would be that the stump would be included in that. But I think a lot of times, especially in the public works world, there are two different processes. So I don't think there would be any harm, and I think it would be beneficial to sort of define that when we're talking about that scenario where a private entity is doing work on a public tree.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Would something like a removal of Removal of a public tree must include stump removal, period. And then the tree warden shall promulgate regulations to require removal by private entities working on public shade trees with a specific timeframe for stump removal, something like that.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think something like that. The first thing that you said, I think was probably the most important thing that you said. So, you know, tree removal shall include stump. Right. And that's just cutting off the within 30 days piece. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Because I think that the expectation would be just that. If you're going to remove the tree, the stump goes with it. I mean, it's part of the tree.
[Nicole Morell]: Would you want to make that in the form of a motion, President Paris?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure. Well, let me, I might amend this entire 8693. My question here is just, and again, this maybe is an intent question to you, Madam President, or it may be a process question that Commissioner McGibbon, I'm not really sure yet. But, you know, it says, A, a public tree shall not be trim pruned or removed by any person other than the tree warden or their designee after a public hearing consistent with General I-87. That makes sense. We've talked about this removal of public tree. That makes sense. Is B, C, D, E, F, and G, are those like awaiting further language or is that just, I'm just a little confused as to what, It says tree rule for jurisdiction process and applicability I feel like a addresses jurisdiction and applicability and then the rest of these are just kind of like section headers that either need a more language in them or it needs to be lumped in this to say. you know, the tree removal permit process shall include an application, a hearing process, no tree warden shall set approval criteria that would include the criteria around the protection of significant trees and mitigation and tree replacement, addressing private activities and emergency, like, you know, I'm just not sure where this is supposed to be heading, if that makes sense. Is that... Is it your view that that just needs to be fleshed out more, or Commissioner McIver, when you look at it, is it, you know, when you just see B, application and hearing process, what does that mean to you?
[Tim McGivern]: But it does look undone to me. Okay. Yeah. But I don't know, but I'm not a, no, I'm not an ordinance expert or anything like that. Yeah. From the substance of it, like it feels a lot like chapter 87, except for those pieces I talked about, so. Okay. I'm not sure what we would prohibit, but you know, prohibited activities.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And that's where, you know, as it is, I think we pull it, you know, I guess that would just be, I'm happy to make a motion on the removal of a public tree to remove the language within 30 days of tree removal and add the following language. You may need this Mr. Clerk, cause I don't have it written down. It would be the tree warden shall promulgate regulations about regarding stump removal by private entities. But yeah, then the rest of this, my comment would just be, I think that needs to get flushed. These like B through G needs to get flushed out a little bit more.
[Nicole Morell]: I'm not seeing approval criteria within the ordinances. Is that something that exists within forestry? That type of, is that like a, do you have that? document that has your approval criteria for when someone is allowed to remove or trim a public tree?
[Tim McGivern]: The tree warden gets to, we just follow chapter 87 rules basically.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, so there's nothing written down that DPW wrote, we just go by the process laid out in the NGL.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe, and maybe that's the answer here, B through G all gets lumped into a sentence that says, the application and hearing process, approval criteria, protections for significant treaties, mitigation, prohibited activities, and emergency shall be, you know, shall follow Chapter 87, right? And then it's just all of those shall follow Chapter 87.
[Nicole Morell]: I think that would be helpful because I mean, right now it just has, within our current ordinances, it just has the permission to cut, trim, or fire. Um, and it references chapter 87, but I think it's, you know, it's not as explicit that approval criteria protection. Mitigate, you know, those things are also exist in chapter 87. So that was probably the intent here. And something, you know, when we talked about just strengthening. The public tree orientation doesn't necessarily change, but I think when someone's reviewing our ordinances, they would have a better understanding of the actual process.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Agreed. Um, and then. Only if I may, just one more question. This mentions a community forestry management plan. Do we currently have that? And is that a requirement of state law?
[Tim McGivern]: My understanding, it's not a requirement. We do not have one at the moment. Forestry management plan? Community forestry management plan. Yeah, so Medford's community, Medford would be the community, so our forestry management plan. We have actually tried to get, recently tried to get some grants for something like that, for both a tree inventory and a forestry management plan. Okay. We were not awarded the grant. Okay. So we've kind of gone back to the drawing board a little bit. And we're always looking for the tree inventory piece because that's a foundation for doing something like a forestry management plan. Right. Yeah. So that's kind of that comes first. Right. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Then, yeah, I mean, I would just further move that sections or subsections B through G under Section 8693B combined. and updated to reflect that they will follow Chapter 87. Sure, it's a subsections B through G of Section 86-93 should be combined and then updated to reflect that those processes will follow Chapter 87. Both.
[Nicole Morell]: Do you want to take the motion now or do you like to take all motions at the end of the meeting?
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to wait.
[Adam Hurtubise]: By private entities. Yeah. And that would replace the language within 30 days of tree removal.
[Nicole Morell]: I think, Commissioner McGivern, so I just wanna affirm that it is the hope and intention to develop that forestry master plan, it's just waiting on funding on that?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, it is the intention that at some point we have a forestry management plan.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. And then Vice President Bears's going back to the point about the tree fund. I think perhaps what's missing. So I think in the intent and purpose paragraph, it references the ability to, you know, it's more explicit about what the tree fund is and the intent purpose as far as allowing a fund for city residents to petition to fund private tree maintenance. So I think right now the tree fund definition is just establishing the account, the deposit of contributions in lieu of tree planting. I think maybe there's an opportunity to bulk that up, you know, or for private citizens to, I'm curious if we wanna make it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, could we take that last sentence, or is that one sentence? I think it is, and make that its own section. So take that.
[Nicole Morell]: So that this ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and maybe the language needs to be updated a little bit, but basically create a separate tree fund section and pull that, because I think that's, not really intended purpose as much as it is, there shall be a tree fund. And I'm also of the mind that maybe there should be a sense that maybe, you know, I'll leave that for another thing, but I think taking E and maybe making that a section to at least like, you know, to the best of their ability, there shall be an updated inventory and a community forestry master plan, something like that. But I won't make that in the form of a motion. I'm happy to make it in the form of a motion to create a second a section, create a section for the tree fund based on the existing last sentence of section 86-91.
[Nicole Morell]: I think we do need to take that. I think we also do need to include the part of the definition just because the definition establishes just as an account. Yeah. I think.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Just a motion to create a separate section of this ordinance to establish a tree fund And we don't need to go into more detail. However that goes, it can be based on what you said and what I said.
[Nicole Morell]: Any other outstanding issues with the public? Just 8694 and 8695 need to be filled out too on the last page.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have suggested language, but just motion to update those sections with relevant language. I think it's basically going to be chapter 87 and 4021 D and then severability we have, which so.
[Nicole Morell]: So I'm seeing a few comments in the chat. One actually, Commissioner Gibbon, since we're talking about public trees for there, is there policy or practices regarding with national grid coming in and do you shape trees? Is there any specific requirements as far as either who they use or skill or training or something with regards to that type of pruning for trees with regards to utility work?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, there are. So if you're an arborist doing work near utility lines and you have to have a special certification, there are some rules that they have to follow. They have to notify us. They are allowed under Mass General Law to do pruning and trimming. And I'm not familiar with the inside and outs, but there are some set rules for them to provide that service. It's not like they have to use specific contractors or anything like that. They just have to meet performance standards and follow mass general law.
[Nicole Morell]: And that's already part of the existing permit process, just like them checking those credentials or... Not through the city.
[Tim McGivern]: So the national grid would be just obligated to follow the law.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, any additional emotions with regarding to the public? She tree and I just want to. Make sure. That we did have a comment in the chat. Just talking about the tree fund being as defined. OK, yeah, so I think there was the member tree fund was also. I think in the draft, the original draft for separate out within the private trees and tree fund was defined as well. But I think. That language has to do a lot with what was draft version as far as penalties and everything else regarded to trimming and removal or not trimming, but removal of private trees. So I think that may be something we need to look at altogether once we get to a place with different parts of this ordinance, so. People want to just hold that in their heads as far as the tree fund. Is there anything else we want to talk through? regarding the public shade tree ordinance that we have before us. Is there any members of the public would like to speak on the public shade tree ordinance? Sure. Name and address for the record, please.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: Good evening, Patrick Harris. Just wondering on the city trees that they take down. I don't generally know of anybody that's private entity that's hired unless the city were to hire them. Because they weren't able to manage to take down the trees. If they are going to do something like this and they have a 30 days to get the stumps out. I'm just wondering if it's a private entity, how do they take care of that if the true stumps are too big, and they're not able to take care of the concrete walkways that might need to come up. at that point, so that might be something to think about when removing stumps. I've definitely seen stumps around the city for well over 60 days still sitting there, but some are during the winter, so I don't know if that plays a role for the city workers to wait until springtime.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I think the amendment we're proposing is just to include that if, as you say, those may be like those rare circumstances where it's a private, just to say that strump removal is part of that permit, but not putting a date on it, understanding there are many different factors that may impact when a stump can come up or can be done.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: And just to clarify, if a city homeowner wants to remove a tree, don't they have to go to the tree warden in the city and they have to approve that? They just can't have a private entity come in?
[Nicole Morell]: For a public tree, yes. I'm saying like, assuming all these other things happen, yeah.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: So I'm just wondering, so a homeowner can't generally just hire a private entity to take down a city tree that they feel needs to come down?
[Nicole Morell]: No.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: So I'm just wondering who would hire a private entity then?
[Nicole Morell]: Oh, okay, yeah, so I guess, yes.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: It would just be the city if the city could not handle the tree then is what I'm trying to ask.
[Nicole Morell]: I believe so, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: To the chair, no, not necessarily. So plenty of contractors coming to build a house, say for example, and there's a public tree where they want to put their driveway curb cut, they may request to have that tree removed and then the tree warden gets to decide whether or not they can take it down or not. And then if it's a no, then it could be a hearing and go through the chapter 87 process.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: But if it's a yes, would the city still take the tree down? They'd allow, we would allow the contract to take it down. Okay. And then the only question about public shade trees is when they plant them in late November and through December, I just don't understand how that's a good time to plant trees. I see the company that comes in, they go right through concrete walkways. I don't see any dig safe being marked off. So I just think that's a safety thing for the city. And this has happened year after year. And the trees that they plant, it's again, during the middle of the winter, these things do not get watered. I don't see anybody maintaining them. So the money that we're putting into these trees and to pay this company to put in the trees every year, is that the correct thing to be spending the money on that time or putting in proper trees? So that's just a comment that I've seen in the city. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Going to Kim on Zoom. Kim, name and address for the record, please.
[bq-gVu-g8qk_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. Hi. My name is Kim Deandre, 54 Canal Street, Medford. And I just wanted to, um, support the removal of the stumps. I know the city is behind and it's going to take a long time to catch up, but kind of starting now, trying to, trying to make the effort to remove them right away so that it doesn't add to the backlog, I think would be great. And, um, Yeah, I already wrote a comment about the importance of coming up with a master plan. Other communities have done that without a lot of funding by getting university and other volunteers to work together on creating a plan. And a couple of trees. just the importance of trying to replace with native trees whenever possible. Thank you. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Going to Sarah on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. There you go. Just one moment. You just have to click the box to unmute. I'll send it again.
[Sarah Gerould]: My name is Sarah Gerald. I'm at 29 Burbank Road in Medford, and I'm speaking also On behalf of Therese Medford, we would very much like to take a look at any changes that were made to the ordinance. We did provide a sort of first draft, I guess, and would be very interested in taking a look and reviewing what changes were made. We didn't have a chance to see the changes before this meeting. I also want to mention that we are in the process of, we have applied for funding from the state to complete the tree inventory that we have started. We've done a section of South Medford and we've done Grove Street Cemetery and we now have money for additional sections, but we're waiting for some money from the state. We've applied for money from DCR that hopefully will finish it off. And we are certainly more than willing to keep putting money towards this for the inventory. But the issue has always been Is the city going to maintain it? Is the city going to put the effort into putting, to keeping the data up to date? And that was, it's been a comment from some of our, the granting agencies, they're very concerned about that. Um, without some assurance that that's really going to happen. It, it does make us very concerned that we're wasting our efforts. Um, so, uh, and in terms of, um, a management forestry management plan, I, you know, I definitely would support that, um, and, um, recognize the need for the inventory in order to, um, help inform that effort. And so I agree that it is sort of a, first you do the inventory and then you do the management plan when you've got data about species distribution, about demographics and about all these kinds of maintenance issues and all this sort of thing. I also would like to support the removal of stumps in a timely way. And I was wondering whether there was a timeframe that the city would be comfortable with. One month might be too short. How about two months? How about three months? And so that we have some accountability from the city on this issue. We've all seen these stumps linger and linger and linger. And I know the city is interested in removing them too and has applied for some grants the block funding for at least those areas, environmental justice areas, but there's the rest of the city too, and we need to have some action in those areas. So with that, I will close.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Going to Elizabeth on Zoom, name and address for the record, please. Oh, and sorry, sorry, to your point, I will make sure we get this, the separated documents up into the Google Drive. This is something we actually just got yesterday. We had motioned for one of the past meetings to have these separated. It was something that was kind of going on in parallel that we lost. So we got that yesterday. There shouldn't be any major changes, any changes that were made at the last meeting we made like in line, I was making them in line on the, in Word, in track changes. And that was kind of some very minor stuff, I think, to address the legal concerns from that review, but I'll make sure that that stuff gets up in the Google Drive. So, now going to Elizabeth on zoom.
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: Hello, Elizabeth dowey 69 Sharon Street in Medford, and I have two points, one of which is. Following up on the, the pruning issue, I, I, I just see trees that are butchered all over the place and I realized sometimes it's you know homeowners just cutting a branch off. But if a tree is not pruned correctly, it shortens the lifetime of the tree. And if we're spending a lot of money planting, I've seen it on some of the new young trees along the river. And really, there are basic pruning techniques that could be taught in a half an hour to whoever is being sent out to trim these trees. You know, I realized it's not always someone who's approved. So that was one point I wanted to make the other point I wonder I really am glad to hear about the, the tree fun getting started and I wondered if. I don't know if the city can do this. Could you keep a list of say approved arborists and, you know, I don't know, five of them or something. And in reciprocation for getting on that list, the arborist would agree to give say a discount to people in Medford. Cause it is expensive to have arborists come in and yet it can really save the life or prolong the life of the tree. And those are my two points.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. So as we move on, going to Ryan, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_10]: Hey, this is Ryan Andrews, I live at 50 Hicks Avenue in Medford. I also, I also work with the territory services here in Medford, and I was just, I'm trying to listen as much as I can but I'm also working. But I wanted to tell some of the folks from the Trees Medford group, and if Aggie's listening, this is for her as well. I'd be happy to volunteer a couple of hours of my time to go over some basic pruning techniques with the group. If somebody wants to chat me up on that, Aggie's got my email, and again, I'd be happy to do that.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. As we move on for this, I know we talked about going to the tree committee, but I want to take advantage of Bill 41 to have you here as kind of a new entrant to this whole conversation and coming from another community. I believe Waltham had or has, I don't know if they had while you were there, a tree ordinance, or I'm just curious from a building commissioner's point of view, if you could share any insight as far as whether it's construction or otherwise permitting that you've experienced with regarding removal of trees. I'd be really curious to have your insight that you could offer. the draft we have before us as well.
[Bill Forte]: Of course, Madam President, thank you through you to the members. So I didn't really have a chance to start making comments on the divided ordinance. I had gotten the draft of what we had originally proposed, I think a few months ago.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, they should be very similar. They shouldn't be different. But I mean, yeah, they're broken off. Things are going on in parallel that the other.
[Bill Forte]: So I've got a couple thoughts. It's definitely it should definitely be separated from private property or public property. There are two different entities. Any any time that there's a public tree, it's in the public interest. Private property is very different. My experience as a code enforcer, I've experience on two sides. I'm actually the conservation commission chairman of my town. I've been on the commission for over 20 years. And so I have some experience with clear cutting without permission. In addition to that, I've also mitigated a lot of arguments, if you will, or code enforcement between neighbors. I get the call all the time. Can I go cut my neighbor's tree? It's hanging over my house. Almost invariably, every time I approach a law department or an attorney, the rhetoric is always, don't get involved. Because the minute you start telling people what they can and can't do with a tree on a property line, now the city may have civil liability. And in dealing with this problem all these years, I actually have a pretty good idea of how this ordinance should be written. I would reconstruct this ordinance with a few additions. The first thing I would suggest is that With the exception of construction review, similar to what you'd have for planning. Now planning obviously has tree mitigation as part of their, you know, as part of the zoning and site plan approval. And so obviously I know that in Waltham there was so many parking spaces per tree, the tree had to be a certain caliber and all that. Very similar to that, we can regulate this at a residential construction level. I think the big concern here is, a builder coming in and just, you know, something that's been wooded all along and just completely clear cut and not a single tree is planted in its place and obviously that's not in the city's best interest and that doesn't help the environment. So I do see the need for, especially in an urban area like Medford, to have a tree mitigation schedule, if you will. And so I believe that we can regulate and mitigate tree removal by almost by zoning chart. So very similar to what you would have as a parking chart, you know, for the number of parking spaces, you would have a tree count mitigation factor. And so say, you know, for example, right, you're removing a tree of 15 inch caliber. Well, then maybe in the in the chart, you replace it with two or three trees of a three inch caliber, you know, with with a specified height and a certain species and all of that. And what would happen is when a person, let's just say that they buy a house, it's been abandoned, this is a typical thing in Medford, right, they get through historical they, you know, they submit for a building permit, and And they're required in the certified plot plan to identify any trees of greater than, say a five inch caliber on the site is part of the zoning as you would with, you know, lot coverage and open space and number of parking stalls you would also have. you know, a tree mitigation chart and you would say that, okay, I'm taking down this, this 15 inch tree I'm putting up two or three trees of this caliber and the size that that would get routed to the tree warden for approval that way they could check the species of the tree, the caliber of the tree the size, and then it would it would relieve the city of any civil liability. Whereas if you're telling somebody they have to keep a tree up and that tree. I mean, I don't even have to say it, you know, God forbid that comes down hurt somebody or damages property. Now the city could be called they're not not that they'd be liable, but you'd be called in as a witness, you know, what did you do with this tree? How come you didn't let them take it down? You know what I mean? Like, it goes on and on and on. So rather than take that choice away from a person who wants to get rid of a tree, you give them the ability to be able to mitigate that, which I think is reasonable. I think it will achieve both, it'll protect the builders and the developers and homeowners economically, but it will also serve the interests I think of the city's needs for for green space I don't think it's, I don't think it's unreasonable to come up with a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a chart that would mitigate that. In addition to that, existing homeowners should be given certain exemptions. So let's just say that a homeowner has a tree that is become menacing. Obviously we don't want to stop that person. I think that a need for a permit and a review would be, you know, would be in order. I don't know that we require a homeowner to mitigate trees because it's not part of a development. But here, this would be something that you'd have to probably look into. Obviously, people cutting trees without a permit, that would be something that a citizen or a builder might be fined for, given enough ample time to absorb the new regulations. We would be able to handle it from a zoning and code enforcement standpoint as long as we weren't involved with anything on the public way. So our enforcement ends at the property line. And I think that we can handle this like a zoning ordinance and a zoning, you know, obviously zoning enforcement through this, you know, through the scheduling of trees. In addition to that. Obviously, I don't see any harm in allowing the person that has a lot that's undeveloped, that there'd be certain exemptions for undeveloped lot. Like there's a maximum number of trees or a minimum number of trees required. Let's just say that a lot gets cleared and it's 8,000 square feet and it's wooded and it's brushed and there are a few trees on there. I don't think it makes any sense to someone to have someone replace a tree for tree or something like that you wouldn't possibly have enough room on the lot for that. But I think we could set standards where a person might put in a lot that's rooted it's reasonable to have a couple of trees on both sides of the property to kind of give it a little bit of a buffer, maybe specify those types of trees. And honestly, you know the ordinance. I would like to rework it, only because there's some language issues there. The enforcement should always come from the building commissioner or his designee. So I just got some, you know, just just some cleanup to do with it but what I'd like to do is I'd like to offer some red line language, and maybe submit it back to this council. And then I think we'll have a little bit more to talk about. I think once you see it, it'll make sense. And I think that we can resolve most of the private property issues, I think, in a manner that's not too much of an economic burden for anyone. And I think that we all can live with it. So how's that sound?
[Nicole Morell]: Great. Thank you. But it's embarrassing.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was about to say, I'm loving this. This is exactly what I think, how you framed it is exactly where we need to go from here, because when it got split out, there's stuff that's kind of across the whole thing and some things that I'm just looking through, I'm like, this needs to not be here. And the enforcement question at the end, that was one of my big questions was just like this private, you know, public tree. dpw tree warden private tree building Commissioner code enforcement inspectors that all makes sense, just so I can kind of pick up what you're putting down I think what you suggested as a process makes perfect sense I just want to clarify the big picture in my head. is you're basically saying, you know, if that taking down a tree on private property, that we could create a permanent review process. And for small folks, for small properties, homeowners, there could be just a permanent review for the larger construction, big construction projects or significant removal of a lot of trees. There would be potential mitigation requirements. Some exemptions for undeveloped lots, I won't get into the weeds on that. And then do you think this would all be a zoning ordinance or would some of it be a zoning ordinance and some of it be a general ordinance?
[Bill Forte]: Should all be zoning orders. Yeah, honestly, I do think that, you know, it serves the public interest.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Bill Forte]: It does benefit, you know, the welfare of all citizens. Right. And I think that it's with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, it fits right in harmony with it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, great. I think so, too. And that to me, I feel like we're on a much stronger legal footing in zoning than we are in a general ordinance. And I think that gets to some of these questions from so long ago from Attorney Stein around just the legal things I'm taking. If it's through zoning, then it's about land use policy and permitting and review.
[Bill Forte]: And in addition to that, you have the benefit of 21D for ticketing. We have a pretty robust code enforcement program. I think you'll all agree that we we do a pretty good job of cleaning the city up and keeping it, keeping it that way. And, you know, we don't have a lot of people outstepping their bounds. But obviously, you know, it's a full time job. I think here, if we if we treat it as almost like a, you know, we're going to capture all of that tree mitigation during construction. I think for the for the average homeowner, I don't think that unless there is a swath of woods that are You know, I think we can set reasonable parameters where somebody wanted to clear a portion of their backyard that was never cleared before. And let's just say that that's that place was outside of a wetland, and there was no jurisdiction by the Conservation Commission, I would imagine your Conservation Commission would require tree mitigation as part of their order of conditions I know that we do. but say it's outside of the buffer zone. Well, I think it might be reasonable to ask a homeowner or require a homeowner rather to mitigate a portion of those trees. Yeah, and I think that it's again, it's reasonable. I think, you know, emergency removal with a 24 hour notice, you know, I mean, obviously, if a tree hits a house, which does happen a couple times a year, you know, that doesn't that's exempt, you know, those are the kinds of things that make a lot of sense, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. This is you answered my questions before I've been asked him, and that's always great.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. It's really great to have your years of experience on this project. I think we've all been wondering sort of how to how to go forward with the private, the private trees piece. And I think that this plan also sounds sounds really great. I think that it does make sense to rework first and then finesse but I do have in my mind that I think if I mean if my understanding is correct I think that the original intent of some of the mitigation measures for private trees was to not just mitigate but also to disincentivize you know clear-cutting whatever that means in an urban context to begin with. So I am And maybe again this might come after we get your red line and then review that but I am curious if what we can do through the sort of tree mitigation schedule replanting potential fees so that you know when necessary are saying okay sometimes all we can do is medicate trees that have to be cut but how can we indeed disincentivize cutting down mature trees in the first place knowing that. know our capacity to enforce truly only does so go so far and I'd be concerned if what a lot of this ends up in is replanting trees that have to be cut with equivalent trees that maybe require substantive care to really take root. I'd be concerned about our capacity to make sure that that's really happening.
[Bill Forte]: No, I would agree. And you know, I mean, almost every case is going to be different. There's there's no way to really, you know, label it and package it up so that it one size fits all. I think obviously, I would want to consult with the tree warden on this and maybe even the chairman of the Conservation Commission. to make a determination about what, you know, what, what kind of mitigation measures might be reasonable again I'm looking at the word reasonable only because I'm actually a builder with 20 years experience and so, you know, I mean, As a builder, I'm used to building on 20,000 or 30,000 square foot lots where you have a tree in the corner, it's not bothering anybody, and it's fine. Now, obviously, I'm building on a 7,000 square foot lot. I have a tree that is a menace. It's a beautiful tree, but you just know it's been up for 100 years and it's getting tired. you know, does it does it become, you know, does it become a cost effective measure to keep that tree up where, you know, who knows a homeowner might be passing papers on that and a homeowner's insurance policy may say, hey, I can't share this because this thing is, you know, is inevitably going to crack. I honestly Councilor I don't have the answer to that. That's a, that's a really tough balance but but I do think I do think that, you know, that there is a, I think that there's a reasonable assumption that a builder is not going to take down a tree that is not going to threaten their investment. Firstly, secondly, I think that you're gonna find that most construction projects are not gonna be able to avoid the drip line that's referred to here in the ordinance, which would basically be the root line of the tree. Again, that's gonna be problematic, I think, with a construction project. You almost have to, you know, drudge somewhere near a tree. And I think staying out of the drip line might be a task for a builder, you know. And again, speaking from experience on all three sides, you know, that might be tough. But again, I think what I would like to do is at least give you the body of the draft that I'm thinking of. And I will certainly take that into consideration because I know that the Obviously the goal here is to try to keep, you know, I actually own a two acre lot where I live and I kept as many trees as I possibly could. You know what I mean? I'm surrounded. I got this great buffer. I can't see my neighbor. It's 200 feet away. Everything disappears in the summertime. It's great. But here in the city, you know, people don't have that same luxury. And so I do get the goal and I respect it. And I do think that it's definitely worthy of, you know, of this ordinance, you know, so.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears. Do you have more?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, yeah, just one more. And thank you. I appreciate that. I understand it's a very difficult balance to strike, especially when we are trying to have development happen. And I appreciate you taking that into consideration. Just on a separate piece that you mentioned. Sorry, just looking at my note here. I agree with everything that you said about exemptions for trees on, you know, owner occupied lots I think that makes a lot of sense. Again, I don't think it makes sense for this to be punitive that's not the goal here. But you mentioned having, you know, permit and review process perhaps by the by the tree warden. The city's not going to say, no, you can't cut down that tree. It's something said very explicitly. The city's never going to say you can't cut down that tree. But I was just wondering if you could explain a little bit more of what the purpose of the permit and reviewing process would be. Would that be to make sure that the tree is being taken down safely? Is that to make sure that the city-wide tree inventory is staying updated when trees do come down? What's the intent there?
[Bill Forte]: So the intent of review by the tree warden is that we're referring to. Yeah, okay. So similar to what would be for the engineering department the engineering department would look at underground or subsurface drainage. That's not something that we look at as a building department we send it off to their department, same with with planning obviously if we have a site plan review. that's outside of the authority of what we are allowed to issue in the zoning ordinance, we send it to their department for review. So it'd be very similar. The tree warden would have the expertise to identify tree species, calibers, conditions of trees. If there's a question about a tree as to whether or not it's safe or not, a tree warden could make that determination. Again, I'm not speaking for the resources of the tree warden. I know that obviously my staff does not have the expertise. I don't have a certified arborist in my, you know, I mean, I do have many different talents, you know, weights and measures and all that stuff, but we do not have an arborist, so we would not be able to make that determination. So we would turn that over to a, you know, to a board committee or individual that's qualified to handle it, so. Gotcha, thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just as you're writing up the draft that's coming to us, one thing that I just think would be helpful to include, sorry, I'm just getting an echo on my end. would be potentially, you know, if we're setting up some sort of structure, and I'm not sure if you're just going to kind of give a general framework or if you want to get in the weeds on what the structure of the table would be, for example, and I'd be happy for you to go into the weeds on what you think might work best. But I think it'd be great, one, if they could, if there's some sort of fractionality or if there's some, let's say, you know, it's a big project and they're cutting down 15 trees or some, whatever the equivalent is, 15 trees, they have to replace 15 trees, I don't know. You know, I think, or there's some, if it ends up being fractional, like for example, in some, you know, you may have a fractional requirement for affordable housing units because of an inclusionary. I think, you know, being able to pay that fraction into the tree fund might be a good option, you know, just addressing that some way. I also think potentially to Councilor Collins's point, how that table and structure is set up could create incentives and disincentives to do certain things like if, you know, I hear you about the example of 100 year old tree and it's on its way out but let's say you have a really healthy 56 year old tree that could go another 40-50 years, you know, maybe it's either something on age or something on caliper or whatever, whatever we're allowed to use to say that certain trees would have a higher mitigation replacement cost if they're removed versus other trees, and then you kind of create, and maybe it sounds like you're already going.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, there would definitely be an arc in the value. So that would be one of the things that I'd confer with the arborist about for sure. In addition to that, obviously, there would be limits, you know what I mean? Again, if you're clear cutting a lot that hasn't been developed, you know what I mean? There should be a maximum amount of trees and perhaps a payment into the tree mitigation fund. I mean, ideally, what would be great is if we could plant As much green leaf as we're taking down, we could put up. Ideally, that would be it. But obviously, we don't have the room. We're a city, and everything is dense. But certainly, I think that we can come up with a measurable. And I think if this committee has a desire to change something, it would be on that. I think that the language that I'll have will be pretty clean. But I think that the tabular values obviously will be something that you'd want to take up once I create the draft.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Yeah, I'm glad you're already there. I love that. That's great.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. And to Councilor Collins' point, I think the Energy Environment Committee, they did a ton of work and Medford Trees did a ton of work as well, but the committee came out with the idea of education. I think, I mean, yeah, if we could all kind of figure out how to prevent people from taking down trees that don't need to be taken down, I think we would have the golden ticket, but I think it's something that every city and town is probably struggling with. One thing that did come up was education. So to get in the weeds on that I'm curious if there would be either just just clarifying around, you know, if there are trees that are removed from like a certain This is getting super in the weeds, but an area where they might be really helping with erosion control and taking all those trees down, would that be maybe a different circumstance? I don't know if this is getting too into the minutiae, but is that a different circumstance? A flat area where it's not going to have the same effect on flooding? those types of things?
[Bill Forte]: Honestly, I think that new construction anyways, at least how I understand it is erosion control by virtue of construction has to be, less water has to be running off into the property than pre-construction. And so trees do help with mitigation, especially in wetlands, especially, you know, in areas that need to be, you know, dried up in certain instances, but I think the only education I can give as a code enforcement officer is don't do that because you're going to get fined. You know, like that's the best education we can give is don't do that until you have a permit. And then obviously the types of training that you're talking about might come from the Conservation Commission. I think, you know, in their age, that would be something, you know, obviously we can launch a campaign with Steve Smerti and the mayor to, you know, to get the word out, you know, when we finally get this thing straightened out and in order, you know, and certainly we would probably have a small grace period where we would say, all right, don't do that, you know, but, but I think that we can reasonably implement it. And I, and I think that what I have in my mind anyway, I think is going to work out great for everyone. So, yeah.
[Nicole Morell]: Great. Thank you. And yeah, and I guess to your point, I think that may also be something to that, that to be established tree committee, if that gets voted for. could possibly take on some of that, you know, creating and disseminating work with the city on education.
[Bill Forte]: And I mean, listen, you know, not not only that, but there should be something also in the ordinance. So let's just say there's a historic tree, you know, you know, over the river and through the woods tree, who knows, right? I mean, that's quite possible. Maybe those types of trees have to go before a committee. You know what I mean? I don't have a problem with that because I honestly don't want the responsibility of, you know, watching somebody, you know, like really be upset about a tree that's been there for 150 years that didn't need to come down, but because we have this ordinance, now all of a sudden we have this, you know what I mean? So honestly, I think that, you know, we've got a lot of work to do with this, there's no question, but I think we can get this thing off the ground if we get the language straightened out and get the schedule, you know, boxed into a reasonable, you know, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: A complete aside, if I could, is that a Medford history that you've been setting up on reference?
[Bill Forte]: Well, no, it's mostly I learned about Medford as I was over the river through the woods. Yeah, yeah. It's the talk of the town now. Whenever I go to a party, that's what I tell people. Do you know? I'm a book of useless information, so that's one of the things that I carry in my encyclopedia of things that people don't really care about.
[Zac Bears]: Wow.
[Bill Forte]: But it is interesting. I share that encyclopedia with you. I got a bunch of them, so I can see you after the meeting.
[Nicole Morell]: And just to make sure I understand, so you talked about permitting for kind of those like one-off trees, would that be all instances of, you know, say someone wants to just fully take down a tree in their backyard, it would always require the permit process? Yes. Okay. Absolutely. And is the thought there similar to, so to take a little bit of the onus off the homeowner, it's similar to you're getting work done on your house, you're not pulling the permit, the contractor is pulling the permit. Is that the thought there or it's just
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I mean it's a permit that can be obtained either by the owner or by the contractor obviously no one's going to want, you know, their brother in law coming on the weekend with a 12 pack of beer cutting a tree down. So, I would say that there's, but there would be no contractor registration or qualification requirement I would say that there would be. That it would be probably based on a one time fee for application process notification, that sort of thing, it would be as simple as getting, you know, like a plumbing or gas or electrical permit it shouldn't take that long. Obviously emergency tree removal would be exempt. And then, and then the number of trees I think I think should be set to a limit so if a homeowner, you know, and the other thing too we have to watch out for is that a homeowner right is described in the state building code is a little bit different. If your name's on the deed now all of a sudden you're the homeowner. I think we need to be a little bit clear about what a, you know, what the residential character of a neighborhood is, you know, how long have you owned the house for, you know what I mean, what are the purposes of this, you know, because, you know, anybody who buys a property as a homeowner, so we've got to kind of, you know, there's this, there's going to be some language issues in there that we're going to have to make sure that we clarify, you know, so it doesn't get abused.
[Nicole Morell]: Appreciate it. I just have a question or a hand up from Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Council President, thank you very much. I know that I appreciate the comments. And I think the feedback I got from constituents are to that point where, you know, the phone call saying, wait a second, I bought my home. If my daughter had one constituent called and says his daughter was nervous because the tree during storms in their backyard scared her. Now it was on their property. Um, he felt that that's enough to cut down his own tree in his own backyard. And this is the, this is the fear that, that residents have had that said, wait, if I, if this is my home, why don't I have the right to cut down my tree? So I think that I understand why. you know, what we're looking at right here. But again, I think this is a slippery slope and I think we have been mentioned, you know, the liability factor of the city, the state coming in and saying, hey, we're going to limit what you're going to do on your property that you've owned for X amount of years. So I appreciate the different outlook that we're getting right now from a building commissioner, but at the same time, I think that this is the biggest issue that I had. I think everybody's on the same page of the tree ordinance until it gets to the point where it comes to private trees on privately owned entities that people have paid taxes on and want to make their own decisions. for what's right. So when you say it's a permit, I think that brings up a red flag for people that have reached out to me and said, hold on, what does that mean? Does a permit mean that now the building inspector is going to say, no, you haven't owned a house long enough. You've only been there for 12 years. So there's a slippery slope there that I think that needs to be defined as we're moving forward with this. So, but thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. I really appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Just just on that point I don't know if you have a. Do you consider what Councilor Scarpelli said, just a pure policy conversation that you don't have an opinion on or is it you know because because this is the thing right, having a permit process, just so that you can have a review of the process doesn't mean when we do that for so many other things on private property people buy their homes they can't just put an addition on without a permit right. I guess just just I'll keep it at that is do you consider like when you say have a permanent review process for something like that is that just for safety and and general concerns or is it is it is it is it going to be discretionary I'm not approving this because I think this tree is valuable but I am approving this because this tree is not like
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I don't think that it's going to be as much subjective as it is administrative. I think that the object of the permit is is notification, more than anything like I wouldn't deny a roof permit, right? Because people need to fix their roofs. I don't think that I don't see us denying a tree permit a tree being cut down, especially if there's, you know, a need and obviously, but but I do think that, you know, that it should be looked at if there's a question, you know, if a person comes in and You know, they're a homeowner and, you know, they have, you know, as, as Councilor Scarpelli referred to, you know, some of that wants to take a treat on that I don't I don't see any reason why we wouldn't issue a permit but clarity. You know, I could, I could put the language together and we can definitely, you know, talk about it so thank you, you know, but I will consider that when I'm drafting my version anyways.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you for the clarity. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, no, thank you, Councilor Scrippin for the question.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, and thank you, Bill. I really appreciate it. I get the feeling the rest of the council really appreciates because I think, you know, for folks watching too, and you know this, we have the beautiful blue sky, here's how we're going to solve everything. And then we have, what can we actually do as a city? What can we enforce? What do we have the ability and what do we have the expertise that we know we can do? So I think your insight is really needed and welcome at this point. So much appreciated.
[Bill Forte]: Terrific. All right. You need me anymore? I'm good, right?
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, you're good. Okay. All right. Very good. Have a great night. Thank you. Um, great. So is there I mean, any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: I know, since we have, we don't have an official motion, but if we want to make a motion or just Yeah, we just moved to, uh, request that the building commissioner provide a draft of private tree protection and preservation ordinance being a red line copy a new draft. I mean, a red line copy is fine, but I wouldn't mind a total. I'd take I'd take a fresh one. Yeah, whatever he wants.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's fine.
[Nicole Morell]: Well, how about red line or draft?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Nicole Morell]: Give him the option.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just the private tree.
[Nicole Morell]: Proposed private tree ordinance. Any further discussion from the council on the private tree portion? Seeing none, any members of the public who wish to speak on the private tree portion of the ordinance we're looking at? Seeing none, okay, so if we want to take, oh, I see Elizabeth. Name and address for the record, please.
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: Elizabeth Dowie. I just want to say in comment to the, The comment that this is my property, I can do what I want on it. We're moving into this tree canopy has to do with climate and we live in a town. My property actually does affect and is affected by what happens on the properties right next to me. So I think we're in a little bit of a different, we're not in the wild, middle of nowhere, when it comes to these trees. So I just wanted to, you know, it's not, I'm not saying no one, you know, the city should have absolute power, but we should remember that, you know, trees also mitigate flooding, the flood lines are being redrawn so that they're you know, getting further and further from the river. And so it's not, it's a tree does affect more than what's just on your own property. I just wanted to make that point. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Go ahead. Madam President. I completely understand. But again, these are questions that are coming to me from constituents that deserve an answer. And I appreciate the comments. So thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Going to Sarah on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Sarah Gerould]: I'm Sarah Gerald at 29 Burbank Road in Medford. And I would like to kind of extend what the previous speaker said. Trees Medford is very committed to improving the canopy in Medford, and that means where trees are taken down, whether or not they are public or private, other trees need to come in their place. And that may mean that the city ends up with a much bigger burden for planting those trees. We will all suffer if, the canopy level goes down much more than it is. Our tree canopy provides shade, which reduces the temperatures in very, in hot weather. It provides a filtration of particulate matter, which is a health hazard for many, many people. And as you probably saw, Medford is one of the worst in terms of particulate matter in this area. I don't know why, but it was pretty stark. And it provides a respite for us all. Trees are a public good. They're like the air we breathe. They provide cleansing for the air we breathe. And so I think there's, uh, in terms of what we need to do, um, to maintain a livable city. Uh, I think we're all agreed that, that, um, maintaining our tree canopy is pretty, it's pretty important. Um, I just want to make sure that, you know, the art of the, um, that we don't, we don't lower our sites because we don't think something is, um, is immediately doable. Um, and that we maintain enough controls so that we can influence the maintenance and the maintenance of our tree canopy. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. I just wanted to add some information to some of the feedback that we just received. So, and Bill mentioned a particular set of laws. So when the state or the federal government feels like there's a public good or public interest in something that is from nature, for example, wetlands, then they'll usually regulate it through law at that level. So in Massachusetts, we have the Wetlands Protection Act, and that protects wetlands in the interests of the public that have to do with those wetlands. So those are highly regulated. So in order for, to protect like an individual tree, in order for the city to say, you can't cut that tree down, private landowner. that would be, in my personal opinion, not in accordance with Mass General Law when it comes to trees. However, if the city were to say something to a private entity through the Conservation Commission, which is the authority over the Wetlands Protection Act here in the city, the municipality, then they can say to a private entity, you cannot fill that wetland in. It is against the law. It's against mass general law. So then you can make ordinance or municipal ordinance or municipal regulations that are underneath the mass general law. So my point here is, for Trees Medford, city council, residents, everybody, the advocating towards your state legislatures to protect things that are in nature, because they are in the interest of the public good, is really the most effective route, because then the city is protected under that master in a lot. With that said, I think Mr. Forte did a very good job explaining how we can mitigate during the construction process, a private object on private property in the interest of the public. You mentioned the mitigation chart. I know our tree warden is in favor of something like that. So if you take down a 12-inch tree that's mature, you have to replace it with X number of smaller diameter trees on the property. So that's a very good suggestion on how to use the teeth of the municipality to affect something on a private property.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Commissioner Gabor. And then also, Director Hahn, as we have you here, I'm curious if you have anything you want to add just from us, you know, wearing your sustainability department hat, or you don't have to, but I know we, you know, took time out of your night.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, no, I've actually appreciated hearing from the different perspectives. It was a, it was very helpful to hear a different sort of some different framing from our new building commissioner and some of the ways of putting some of this forward. As you all know, our climate plan talks about the importance of trees that Not, I will say not everybody agrees, but there are a lot of things that are out there that are for our public good and they affect everybody, right? When the cars drive down the highway and their particulate matter comes into the air, that impacts all of us. And when we have trees to help clean the air, that impacts all of us. And we couldn't possibly just deal with what we need with the trees that are in the public waste. You know, it's just, it's not possible to be enough. And so I think that there's been a lot of talk over the years about private property and private rights, but there's also, when do your private rights impact my health and my wellbeing? And that's something I think that we all need to be thinking about as well as we pursue this. And that's not in the weeds. I feel like so many people are in the weeds on this that I've kind of taken a step back until there's a piece that's, necessary, but really just to bring us back and remember that the big picture that we all need healthy air and clean air and the trees are really important and that the old growth trees are really important, but we should recognize that sometimes they die of old age. And that is something that we are also aware of as well. and to be able to understand when are trees reaching their end of life? And that's sad, but it happens. And when is it that somebody's just irritated at raking leaves or just is afraid? So many people, I have myself been afraid that my neighbor's tree is gonna fall over in a big windstorm. We have these fears, but we all have to live with our fears. We also might be afraid that we're gonna skid off the road in a snowstorm, but does that mean we don't drive? I just offer those as like a big picture view on all this hard work this evening. So thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Director Hunt. I appreciate it. New address for the record, please.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: Patrick Kearse, 178 Woburn Street. Just wondering on a timeframe, like if I'm working with a customer in Winchester for designing, I mean Medford, and they want to take down a tree, how long in the paperwork, if that can be put in there, how long it would be for them to get a tree committee out there to look at this tree, so I know how long a project is actually going to take before somebody can remove a tree, if that's understandable?
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I think that remains to be
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: seen I think the idea, I'm just thinking of something that would be added to, so that we could tell homeowners know they need to get to the city first that the project is going to take so long so that does get into fortune and they know how long a project is going to take.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, no, I think that's a really important point. We can make sure, I mean, I think, again, this has to come back to us. We still have many, a long way to go, but I, you know, based on the building commissioner's statements, and again, this is stuff we have to vote on, I don't think he wants it to be, it's not meant to be an onerous process. It's meant to be, you know, a safety, like a permit, similar to, you know, something you would get for, you know, like we said, additional plumbing, something that, you know, may take a few days sometimes, depending on who's in, who's out, who can show up to the site, but I don't think it's meant to be, a lengthy process that goes out to a committee and back from a committee is the thought. Again, we still have to decide and vote on this, but that's what I gathered from him.
[p1rND0ygKWg_SPEAKER_18]: Okay, and just my thought on the canopies. I mean, the canopy of Medford back in the 1930s was much less than the canopy that it is now in Medford today, if you look back on the canopies. And as a landscaper, last year alone, I probably planted over a thousand trees and shrubs. So most people I know that are taking down trees are replacing them with other trees. So I do feel that the residents do give back by planting new trees for the future. So just my thoughts.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Um, so moving on to if we want to talk to the tree committee ordinance we have before us. So in this draft, I think just the main concern, um, which, uh, Director Hunt actually may be able to speak to just your involvement on committees and commissions was just the power being actually. And I think 10. This may be of concern as well. Um, commissioner given just the power being granted to the tree committee that may exist as like a separate body of legislating authority that does not exist in the city. I think the recommendation is this to serve more in an advisory capacity similar to our boards and, well, some of our current boards and commissions do the ones that basically exist outside of MGL so I believe those are the main comments we have. I think just One of the comments is just hoping that one of the members will hold a license as a MAS certified arborist or international certified arborist or similar. Based on the call tonight, we may have someone who wants to take up that position. So, I mean, maybe we take that as a, you know, if possible, as opposed to a must, I think it's a nice to have, but I don't want it to hold up the work of this committee, so.
[Zac Bears]: The first comment is fine if we don't approve any other committees before we do this committee, so. If we don't approve any other committees, then it technically would be Division 17 of Article 3 of Chapter 2, so.
[Nicole Morell]: Oh, OK, got it. I see you're saying it's a number in common. Yeah, got it. OK, so. Well, we'll revisit that, you know. Again, we've been at this for four years, so we'll see if any committee, if another committee is established before we get this through. We'll check on that.
[Zac Bears]: The ones we voted on so far are not in Article 2.
[Nicole Morell]: Great. So yeah, so we addressed that one comment, and then just, yeah, that large comment is just, regarding the duties of the committee, it does state, this is from Attorney Stein, is that this section will require review, revisions, and clarification once the amendments to Chapter 86 of the city ordinances are finalized. I recommend it generally to, revising it generally to have the committee serve as more of an advisory capacity as to public shaded trees, as committee cannot usurp the statutory authority within the tree ward under Chapter 87, and you may not want to invest in enforcement authority and a volunteer committee, which I, you know, editorializing I agree with. Also the scope of this may cross into the jurisdiction of other city boards, committees, officials, et cetera. So I think that's A, B, and C under duties are just flagged by Attorney Stein. So if we have any motions there, or if we wanna leave this in committee as is until we have the other documents before us in a more final form.
[Alicia Hunt]: I would just comment, it's the, I think the thing that gives this committee teeth, but it's very concerning, because I don't know how it would work, is B, ensure the city adheres to provisions of MGL Chapter 87. Like, what does that mean, right? Like, it sounds like it's a watchdog. Maybe that's necessary, I'm not saying, because one thing I want to just, over time, we shouldn't put, we might say, but we absolutely do, we're great, but who's to say that 15 years from now, there wouldn't be somebody sitting here in city hall who flagrantly just ignores chapter 87, right? Like we can't predict who would be in these positions in the future. I just, I don't understand how, I mean, if it said something like works with the city, to help it adhere to the provisions of, right? Like that's an enabling and usually our boards and commissions either have regulatory authority that is given to them by the state, right? The planning board, the zoning board, the conservation commission, for example, or their advisory in nature, you know, the bicycle commission, the energy committee, their advisory in nature, they can do things, they can do projects, but they don't, enforce anything. I don't think that it's possible, and it might not be legally possible, but I don't see how a resident committee could enforce or ensure something. I think that's something that we need to really look at.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Councilor Collins. Yeah, thank you, Alicia, for those comments. I think that's interesting. And when I read this again, it's the existing language feels less problematic. I feel like it kind of comes down to how you take the word insure. If you interpret that as actually resulting in material insuring, then yeah, that seems certainly beyond the scope of volunteer committee, beyond the scope and also just not something that a volunteer committee should be empowered to do. But interpreting it a different way as more of an advisory watchdog role, it seems, It seems reasonable to me. And I also, I mean, this is something I often think about many committees that we discuss and consider is there's usually a fairly long list of responsibilities or duties that they might take up, or just a generally ambitious list of things that the committee might be empowered to do, but they don't have to do all of them. And often I feel that, I feel skeptical about the ability of any all volunteer committee to do the, you know, many tasks that an under-resourced community might, you know, wish for a committee to do, which is a long way of saying, I'm not sure, like, how problematic the existing language is. I'm certainly happy to see it reworked. I mean, it doesn't necessarily raise any red flags for me, but I'm certainly, you know, sympathetic to the concerns to make sure that we're not going too far or, I mean, of course, As I like to say, you know, I don't think that we should have volunteer committees, I think that our committee should be stipended. I think that if we're asking a lot of our committees that they should be compensated in some way. We're always asking a lot of our committees, but I think I'm happy to, you know, kind of keep this in committee and continue to consider if there's just like a bit of rewording that would help finesse this balance.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I mean, my thought would be to where we can be as explicit as possible. I mean, I think we have experience as Councilors in reviewing our zoning or lots of things. There are a lot of things that are perhaps intentionally ambiguous. It would be great to stop that. So seeing where we can be explicit in what our intention is. So, I was just embarrassed.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with what Councilor Collins said. I agree with what Director Hunt said. I think the interesting thing here is that a lot of these are actually, like, so A, it looks like the tree committee would basically be focusing just on public trees. So I think that's one thing to note. And so I would appreciate any more detailed review of these duties by Commissioner McIverton and Tree Warden Tootin. you know, potential suggested language changes they would like to see. But a lot of it, even a couple of the highlighted items with some minor changes, I think there's really some, you know, added value, bringing capacity to the table to work for the forestry division. You know, if you had, you know, maybe coming up with a, even a framework for community forestry management plan or working on the inventory or working on the vegetation management plans of utilities to help them get trained on pruning, right? It sounded like we had some real volunteer experience. in this meeting tonight of member, not to volunteer anyone to be on a committee, but that could maybe be some added hours every week or month that the department currently doesn't have to help advance the ball on some things. So that's where I see a lot of value of this tree committee. Additionally, I could see potentially some role around the tree fund. We do have committees that address funds, right? We have committees that help spend certain funds that we get. Councilor Tseng is on the casino fund. Yeah, I'm sorry, right, community impact. Mitigation, community, yeah, whatever it is. Community fund commission. So that could be a role here to making recommendations around tree fund if there was some surplus of funds.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it would be, I would feel better if it were if the language were clear. I just, just in case, just for future people who are looking at the ordinance, but also just to shield us legally as well. I think what most people in the room concur on is the point of it is some kind of advisory oversight role as Councilor Collins has mentioned, which I personally don't think would overstep the bounds. I think that's a question for our department heads as well to see what you guys are comfortable with. I think Councilor Bears makes a great point that if I think I would trust the members of this commission to aid our city departments in the work that we're already finding is difficult to get covered. And so I think empowering that would be would be a good idea. Yes, but I'm happy to hear what our department heads have to have to say about this commission, or what's what's put in there right now.
[Nicole Morell]: I think right now I can look back on the other draft. I know this draft just has Attorney Stein's comments on the tree committee. I'll keep. Yeah, Commissioner, if you have comments now, I'll keep searching.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think the way it's written, it doesn't necessarily conflict with duties of the tree warden. So one of the primary things I'd be looking for is making sure that we're not creating conflicting duties. The tree warden has the control of the public shade trees in the city. Tree warden works for DPW and the forestry department works under the direction of the tree warden and myself, the commissioner. So as you can see, that's a little bit of a, you know, pretty clear line of chain of command, except for the fact that you know, one entity in that chain of command is responsible for the care and control of the trees. So if we add another entity into this mix, you know, I'd have concerns with how that relationship works between the tree warden and the tree committee and making sure that the duties are clear. I think the discussion that we're having right now is kind of pointing at some of the things that aren't clear. So I would prefer to make their duties as clear as possible. And if it's just like an advisory committee, that should be made clear. So I guess that's it. Those are my thoughts at the moment. So.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Commissioner McIver. Yeah, looking at this, I found your comment. It was basically, you said there's a lot of reference to working with the tree warden, and it needs to be explicit what that means.
[Tim McGivern]: It does need to be explicit.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Yep.
[Alicia Hunt]: Any further discussion? I think I just want to share one thought that I, partially this is to members of Trees Medford, as well as to the council, that I would hope that a committee like this, that they wouldn't think that this replaces them. And I know they don't think this is usurping them because a lot of this language actually came to the city from Trees Medford, but I wouldn't want to see this be instead of them. because the city needs advocacy groups who are independent of being appointed by the city. When you are appointed by the city, there are levels of responsibility of what you can and cannot say and how you do things. because you represent the city. And so members of an official appointed body are not free to just sort of say they completely disagree with the city. They can resign from the body, right? Like there's some, you're working with the city, but we also need, the best way to hold the city accountable is to be an outside entity that looks at what the city's doing and says something when they see something. And that is better done by a separate body than one that is appointed that, you know, right, like they owe their appointments to this commit the city that they're criticizing. That's not right. It's also I have found some of our boards and commissions who are trying to be advocacy groups and who are trying to like do the right thing and do projects, get tied up in open meeting law, right? If you are a community group, you have no obligation to follow open meeting law. You might do stuff like that, but like subcommittees of the energy committee realized that they had to be posting every time they were meeting. And then they had to meet in a public place that was publicly accessible. And they're like, well, how are we supposed to work on things and get projects done? if we can't meet together other than this like once a month, strictly scheduled kind of stuff. And they find that to be difficult. And so I just kind of want to remind people that there's actually a lot of benefit to having some of this stuff in a group that's not an officially appointed committee. I mean, if we want a committee, we could have a committee too, so.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Director. Any further discussion from the council? Any motions at this time?
[Zac Bears]: I just, I would move to request, I mean, Tim just gave some great comments, but request written comments from the DPW commissioner of the tree warden on the tree committee ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any members of the public who would like to speak at this time? Sorry, Councilor, Mr. Clerk,
[Zac Bears]: Request comments from the DPW commissioner and the tree warden on the tree committee ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I guess any additional comments because Commissioner McIver did provide.
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah, just any specific, I think just that point around the And you don't have to include this in the motion but just for your context, just what you were saying about clarifying advisory committee clarifying specific duties what they would be because I think there's stuff in here where there'd be value. from, and I guess Aggie would be the best person to answer these questions, where like it would add value to what you're doing versus places where it would create conflict.
[Tim McGivern]: Completely understand, and I could put my head together with her and provide some comments with even more detail, I think, and context.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, thanks. Not to say you haven't commented a lot already.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, because I'd like to have some, you know, we'd like to have some input on owning that piece just for the reasons I mentioned. Right, great.
[Nicole Morell]: And we have had the tree warden on the call this entire time. No, no, no, no. I mean, she's, you know, just have raised her hand or anything. So I've been keeping an eye. I don't know if there's anything specific you'd like to add relative to either the committee or any of these pieces. Actually have to unmute you.
[Unidentified]: There you go.
[j0mqfzXKqXM_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Council President Morell and all Councilors and Commissioner McGibbon and Alicia Hunt. It's been very interesting and informative to be on this Zoom meeting, and I thank everyone for all their great comments, and I'm glad to be a part of this effort. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Warren Tudin. Any comments from, any additional comments from the public at this time? And we have a number of motions. to address seeing none, Mr. Clark, if you could read back all the motions we have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: and that's also seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So that's, I believe that was six motions. I think it's six, okay. Would we like to take those all together?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Any councilors opposed to taking those all together? All right, seeing none. So time to take a motion to take them all together. Okay, all right. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to take all of the motions together, seconded by- Seconded. Vice-Chair Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[George Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Sorry, yes.
[Nicole Morell]: I think Scarpelli just voted for Councilor Caraviello. I'm not sure if Councilor Caraviello was able to speak where he is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do you fall?
[Nicole Morell]: I don't think he can vote for him. You accidentally voted for Rick before, right?
[George Scarpelli]: Yes, I did. I apologize.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Yes. Do you want to call for Rick one more time? He's signed on, but he might not be where he can speak. So that is, oh yeah, he might not be able to. Is he not able to, he might not be able to unmute himself.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 5-1-1 right here.
[Nicole Morell]: I asked him to unmute, he might not be. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You got me?
[Nicole Morell]: Got it. Thank you. So that is- Thank you. Five in the affirmative. No, sorry. Six in the affirmative. Zero in the negative. One absent. And that motion was just to take them all together. Now we have to move to vote them all. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it could have been a motion to join in approved, right?
[Nicole Morell]: I guess.
[Zac Bears]: Darn.
[Nicole Morell]: No, it wasn't. It could have been, but it wasn't.
[Zac Bears]: We've lost our opportunity. Okay.
[Nicole Morell]: We joined the motion. So now do I have a motion to approve? So on that motion of Councilor Tseng to approve all of the motions before us, seconded by Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Do you want to add anything else to that motion?
[Zac Bears]: Maybe a motion to adjourn.
[Nicole Morell]: So we have a motion from Councilor Tseng to approve all of the motions before us and adjourn. Second by Vice President Bears.
[Unidentified]: I don't think we're going to be able to do this. I don't think we're going to be able to do this. I don't think we're going to be able to do this. I don't think we're going to be able to do this. I don't think we're going to be able to do this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't think we're going to be able
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Yes, six in the infirmary was during the negative one absolutely motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone.
|
total time: 25.25 minutes total words: 2426 |
total time: 6.74 minutes total words: 547 |
total time: 15.06 minutes total words: 1589 |
total time: 2.16 minutes total words: 241 |
|
total time: 1.22 minutes total words: 96 |
|||