Revere City Councillors Joanne McKenna and Jim Mercurio are looking to revise a proposed city-wide tree ordinance they recently introduced to the council before bringing it back to the council.
Monday night, the council held a public hearing on the tree preservation ordinance, which McKenna and Mercurio said seeks to protect the tree cover in Revere.
However, the councillors said there were some questions about the oversight and fees associated with the ordinance and were willing to rework it to get wider support from the full council.
“Recognizing that unnecessary tree removal contributes to the loss of the City’s tree canopy, this chapter establishes a permit process to protect healthy trees from removal for reasons of convenience, including routine leaf, seed, branch, or other yard cleanup, while allowing removal when there is a reasonable need to do so,” stated the original proposed ordinance.
During the public hearing, several residents spoke in favor of the ordinance. However, some residents did express concerns about issues related to government oversight of the ordinance, and the permitting fees and potential fees associated with payments in lieu of replacing trees that are removed on private property.
“I have four mature trees in my yard that were already there and growing when my parents bought the house 67 years ago, so I am in support of having a tree preservation ordinance because we really need it in this city right now,” said Revere resident Stephanie Desisto.
Desisto noted that there are a number of newer homeowners in Revere who move to the city and will try to remove the trees from their properties to create more parking.
“I can understand why this is happening, however, it is out of control,” said Desisto.
When she first heard about the ordinance, Desisto said she was skeptical about the city being able to tell homeowners what they can do on private property. However, she pointed to recent activity in Beachmont where a number of trees were cut down leaving a blight on the neighborhood, as well as a closer reading of the ordinance, as a reason why she is supporting it.
“The reality is, the city can and does tell property owners what they can and can’t do,” Desisto said. “We have zoning, we have building, we have health and safety, we have noise ordinances of every kind that regulate what property owners can and can’t do.”
However, not all residents were supportive of the government oversight.
Ward 5 Councillor Angela Guarino-Sawaya read a letter in opposition to the ordinance from local attorney Christine Carey that she wrote on behalf of her family.
“While we support responsible environmental stewardship and efforts to preserve the Revere tree canopy, this ordinance places additional government regulations, fees, and financial burdens on homeowners, while providing broad authority to the city over decisions involving private property,” Carey wrote. “The proposal would require homeowners to obtain permits before removing certain trees on their own property, pay permit application fees, replace removed trees, or make payments into a city fund.”
Carey also stated that the tree warden or city engineer may not have the necessary background to oversee the effects of trees on private property.
“I talked to a couple of councillors tonight, and I know many councillors are getting pushback with this ordinance, they feel compelled to vote it down,” said McKenna. “The conflict, I believe, is that the residents feel that the tree warden coming onto their property or getting a permit to have a tree cut down is an invasion of privacy.”
McKenna did note that the city does have the right to fine property owners if there are issues with garbage or other matters. She also said that the proposed tree ordinance is similar to ones that are in place and are effective in other cities.
McKenna said she and Mercurio will take the time to revise the ordinance and take additional input so that it is more palatable for residents.
“We brought this ordinance forward because we believe that protecting Revere’s tree canopy is important,” said Mercurio. “I still believe that we need a reasonable tree preservation ordinance in our city, however I have listened to the concerns raised by my colleagues and by residents, (and) I understand the concern about government telling homeowners what they can and cannot do with trees on their own property. I also believe that we need to take another look at the mandatory replacement provisions, the fees, the penalties, and make sure that we are not placing any unreasonable financial or administrative burden on our residents.”