Pete Stidman

JAMAICA PLAIN GAZETTE

As the number of times a developer fells a tree in Jamaica Plain to make room for new construction rises, so grows the number of neighbors clamoring for chainsaw accountability. It isn’t necessarily a rule of thumb, but it’s happening.

When developer Gary Martell clear-cut two very old trees at 33 Bynner St., the JP Neighborhood Council (JPNC) scheduled a joint meeting between its Housing and Development Committee and Parks and Open Space Committee on June 20 to brainstorm ways developer buzzsaws might be checked, or at least put under a public review process.

The meeting is the most recent development in a small storm of tree activism that has been building over the last year. Just as a local battle over a grove of threatened trees on Grotto Glen Road drove new members into the Parks and Open Space Committee over the winter months, the loss of other specimens around Paul Gore Street and Evergreen Street is driving new members into one of JP’s most newest groups: JP Trees.

“Between chainsaws on one side and then the digging up of a beautiful rock outcropping in the back of us, I had to do something to turn this negative into a positive,” said Stacey Keene, a new member of JP Trees who attended the JPNC committee meeting. “We came away [from the meeting] realizing that there are places like Cambridge that make it more difficult to take down trees. There has to be some process of accountability when developers come in.”

“The question is, is it possible to create a local solution?” said recently-appointed JPNC member David Baron in a phone interview. “Can we do anything here that would have teeth to protect trees, or is the only way do it to have a citywide ordinance? Or both?”

By all accounts this question of how has not been answered yet, although a variety of opinions have begun to take root. Some residents, such as Linda Ockene, founder of JP Trees, desire some sort of protection for trees on public or private land. Ockene cites communal benefits of trees such as their positive effect on air quality, storm-water drainage, property values and even helping to reduce the crime rate. She backs up her tree benefits claims with research that can be found at tree-loving web sites such as coloradotrees.org.

“Developers are allowed to raze any tree no matter what the size or significance to the neighborhood,” said Ockene in an interview. “That’s the exact opposite of what I’d like to see. I think every developer should have to justify taking down a tree that is significant to the community. It seems like now’s the time to be affecting a citywide policy.”

Fransesca Fordiani, chair of the Housing and Development Committee, is less optimistic about promoting anything that would infringe on landowners’ property rights.

“There are certain concerns about our ability to have on impact on as-of-right development, and not to overreach too much,” said Fordiani in an interview. “For a lot of developers cost is an issue. Sometimes it can be more expensive to plan without just clearing a lot. There’s always going to be these tensions between more density and less density. There’s no single solution.”

Increased attention is being paid to the importance of urban trees from New York to California, and a large variety of tree ordinances already exist in small and large cities across the country. Baron, a real estate lawyer by trade, looked into a number of the ordinances and presented the information at the meeting.

Large project protection

Some tree ordinances, like that of Cambridge, focus on large projects and exclude affordable housing. Cambridge’s “Tree Protection Ordinance” covers private property, but only on new buildings over 25,000 square feet that require zoning variances to be built. It does not apply to any construction of low- or moderate-income housing, or to smaller construction projects.

The ordinance defines “significant trees” as those over 8inches in diameter at breast height (4 feet). If developers want to remove one, they have to replace it with other trees. Each project is required to hire a city arborist to perform a tree study from which the developer creates a tree protection plan. Developers can also contribute an equivalent value for any felled trees to a tree replacement fund operated by the city.

San Francisco also protects certain trees as landmarks. To achieve landmark status a tree must be nominated by a member of the city’s Board of Supervisors (akin to Boston’s City Council) and approved by the board by vote.

Expanded street tree protection

San Francisco has a mere 11 percent tree canopy coverage to protect. Their recently amended ordinance is more comprehensive.

The San Francisco tree ordinance covers trees over 12 inches at breast height on all public property, and all private property within 10 feet of a right-of-way. The process for tree-cutting review is not tied to new development and zoning variances as in the two Massachusetts examples, but is instead tied to policies that already covered street trees.

If a property owner wants to remove a tree on their own property within 10 feet of a right-of-way in San Francisco, they must apply for a city permit just as they would if they wanted to remove a tree on public property. The permit process involves public review and notifies abutters of the potential removal, giving them a chance to oppose it. Just as in the Massachusetts examples, a potential Paul Bunyan might be compelled to plant replacement trees or pay into a city-controlled tree fund to make up for a lost tree.

Just the beginning

The Parks and Open Space Committee will meet again on July 18 at 6:30 pm at Circles, 555 Amory St. It isn’t yet clear whether both committees will meet together again to continue their brainstorming session. It’s also possible that the zoning committee will enter the discussion in some future meeting.

JP Trees, while continuing to follow this debate, is also reaching out to anyone in the neighborhood who is willing to plant and care for trees in their own yards or who would like to get involved with advocating for tree protection. Ockene can be reached at 983-2242.

Also in Boston, a coalition of independent and government organizations under the Boston Urban Forestry Coalition is currently working on an assessment of the city’s tree canopy that is scheduled to be finished this October. The study will aid in quantifying, in financial terms related to storm drainage, air quality and energy conservation, the value of the city’s canopy.