nothin Final Word On 87 Union Trees: Goodbye | New Haven Independent

Final Word On 87 Union Trees: Goodbye

Allan Appel Photo

None of the trees made the cut.

Or, rather, in a sad ironic way, they all did. Or soon will.

After two public hearings and much outcry to save at least a handful of the trees on the site of the upcoming 87 Union St. development site, city parks and rec chief Rebecca Bombero, who also functions as tree warden, has ruled that all the marked trees must go — 29 of them.

Copse at Union and Fair, future entryway to the development.

The developer will pay for removal and will substitute, inch for inch, new trees to replace trees that remain in good condition but, for construction reasons, need to be cut down.

That final decision, which is not subject to appeal, was contained in an email sent to about 50 stakeholders” Thursday night.

In a tree-by-tree sentencing document, Bombero described the condition of each of the trees in question lining Union Avenue and Fair Street, including the copse at the corner of Union and Fair, where the main entryway to the development is scheduled to be.

Read the full decision below in this story.

Nineteen trees were, she wrote, in poor enough condition to warrant removal at the expense of the developer.

Another ten trees were in okay to good enough condition and, absent a development, well might have thrived. However, because these trees either are too close to the new building line, or would be ultimately damaged or compromised, especially in their root systems, when it came time to laying down new concrete sidewalks and curb cuts, these trees also have to go.

Of these, three trees that were subject to an especially passionate plea at the final public hearing — an oak in the public way along Union Avenue, an oak at the pinnacle of the copse at the Fair and Union corner, and a honey locust farther down Fair Street — each received a slight reprieve in their sentences.

They will be allowed to remain some months longer and provide shade and other environmental benefits during construction. However, they too will be removed, with timing to coincide with construction requirements.

The approved site plan for 87 Union includes 23 new trees, including seven in the public way and five on private property. They are now to be considered as offset or replacement for the to-be-downed trees, Bombero wrote.

That site plan, however, may be amended during construction when the three reprieved trees in question finally come down and the developer must compensate for those healthy trees’ loss through additional replacements and/or contributions to a city tree preservation fund.

The precise location of the replacement trees and their configurations — on site, across the street at the popular dog park, or in other corners of Wooster Square or the city as a whole — remains to be determined.

Following is the full text of Bombero’s decision:

Public Hearing Decision

Trees located at 87 Union Street (along Union & Fair Street)

Hearing held on Monday, March 18 at 6PM at 165 Church Street, New Haven

Attendees: Rebecca Bombero, Tree Warden; William Carone, Deputy Director of Parks and Squares; Peter Antoniu, Developer-Adam America; Michael Hunton, Landscape Architect — Langdon, Interested Parties: Michelle Duong, Anstress Farwell, Chris Ozyck, Allen Appel

General Comments: Comments were received by email, phone at the February 26th hearing for a subsection of the trees and at the March 18th public hearing. While there were comments specifically related to these trees there were many comments about the benefits of trees in general, concern raised about the drastic loss of canopy and shade along specific streets in general and along Union Street, and highlighted confusion as it related to the interaction of site plan review with the tree removal process. Additional comments were made about the design of replacements which were contemplated through the site plan process and are not relevant to this hearing process.

General Recommendations:
The Department shares the opinions of the benefit of trees and strives to protect healthy trees and ensure that we maintain our canopy overall. As a matter of practice, on the request for private removals we will permit the removals when trees meet our dead, diseased, dying or structurally unsound standards. When trees do not meet that standard, we require that the developer replace trees inch for inch to help restore the canopy.

When two regulatory processes such as a City Plan review and the Tree Warden’s hearing process are both triggered things can be confusing. In an effort to address this confusion the City’s Parks department has been more involved in site plan reviews since 2016/17 after the site plan for 87 Union was adopted. In an effort to streamline this process further, we are working with City Plan to help to develop a process aimed to alert commenters to the City Plan Commission of potential removals through notices posted to trees similar to those for the public hearing process. This would not replace the standard public hearing process which would occur when the proposed development moves forward. The City Plan standard conditions will also be updated to alert developers of the public comment process for tree removal as governed by state statutes.

Decision:
As Tree Warden, pursuant to Ct. General Statute sec. 23 – 59, and having held a public hearing in accordance with that statute, I am issuing the following decision following street trees in question:

Union Avenue (From Left to Right):

1st Left: Oak, disturbed bark, dead leaders – Remove

2nd Left: Oak, crown reduced through significant utility trimming, some deadwood could be mitigated by trimming, poor aesthetics, does not meet standards for removal, but due to destruction of crown from utility pruning has less than full value to system – Required 1 for one replacement at 2” minimum.

3rd Left: Oak, cavities and hallows – Remove

4th Left: Oak, bark damage, deadwood – removal of deadwood would result in more than 25% reduction to crown – Remove

5Ath Offset: Within the public right of way. Was tagged as #30, Spruce, dead – Remove

5th Left: Also offset from road within the public right of way, Oak, healthy tree, some deadwood required. A significant amount of testimony was related to saving this tree. However, the building will be built as of right to property line within proximity to the trunk of the tree. With the necessary excavation and construction the stress to the tree would have significant impact. Based upon these stresses, the long-term survival of the tree could be impacted and creating a potential liability. Additionally, it is unlikely that the tree could be trimmed to achieve clearance from the building without negatively impacting the structure of the tree. Will permit the removal of the tree with inch for inch replacement. Required 25” of replacement.

6th Left: Oak, significant deadwood, removal of deadwood would result in more than 25% reduction of crown – Remove

7th Left: Oak, also offset from road within the public right of way, healthy tree. A significant amount of testimony was related to saving this tree. This tree is offset further from the proposed building. The impact of excavation and construction is still a concern as the building line will still be within the drip line of the tree. Trimming to achieve required clearances would result in more than a 25% reduction to the crown. Will permit the removal of the tree but request that it remain through the construction period to help maintain shade. Upon removal will require 24” of replacement.

8th Left: Oak, significant deadwood, several cracked leaders, hazard trimming would result in more than 25% reduction of crown – Remove

9th Left: Species unknown, offset tree – this tree sits on the property line as such jurisdiction is unclear, and we will therefore permit its removal by the property owner – Remove

10th Left: Oak, girdled roots, poor structure – Remove

11th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Minimal bark damage. Due to the close proximity to other trees it has a minimal canopy and its environmental benefits are not maximized to its height/DBH and has less value to the system. Required 1 for one replacement at 2” minimum.

12th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Some deadwood. Due to its clustering there is minimal canopy, removing the deadwood would result in over 25% reduction of crown – Remove

13th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Significant epiphylla growth. Nearly non-existent crown. Remove

14th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Healthy tree, however, due to the close proximity to other trees it has a minimal canopy and its environmental benefits are not maximized to its height/DBH and has less value to the system. Required 1 for one replacement at 2” minimum.

15th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Healthy tree, however, due to the close proximity to other trees it has a minimal canopy and its environmental benefits are not maximized to its height/DBH and has less value to the system. Required 1 for one replacement at 2” minimum.

16th Left: Oak, roadside. Some deadwood and cracks in crown, significant bark damage. Remove

17th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Bark damage, some deadwood and cracks in crown. Due to its clustering there is minimal canopy, required hazard trimming would result in over 25% reduction of crown – Remove

18th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Healthy tree, however, due to the close proximity to other trees it has a minimal canopy and its environmental benefits are not maximized to its height/DBH and has less value to the system. Required 1 for one replacement at 2” minimum.

19th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Crown defects. Due to its clustering there is minimal canopy, required hazard trimming would result in over 25% reduction of crown – Remove

20th Left: Oak, Part of the bosque of trees. Healthy tree, however, due to the close proximity to other trees it has a minimal canopy and its environmental benefits are not maximized to its height/DBH and has less value to the system. Required 1 for one replacement at 2” minimum.

21st Left: Oak, corner of Union and Fair. A good deal of testimony was devoted to saving this tree. Although the tree has a fair amount of deadwood it could be mitigated through trimming without exceeding a 25% reduction to the crown. Unfortunately, the tree sits at the apex of Union Street and Fair Street. When the sidewalks are replaced, they will need to meet ADA standards with the appropriate curb cuts and ramps. In order to meet this standard, excavation and grade change will need to occur in extremely close proximity to the tree impacting its root structure. Will permit the removal of the tree but request that it remain through the construction period to help maintain shade with removal completed as part of the sidewalk project. While access to the site is anticipated at this corner the tree is currently protected by an in-road island, thus egress could not occur through the location of the tree. Upon removal will require 20” of replacement.

Fair Street (From Left to Right)

22nd Tree, 1st Left on Fair: Honey Locust, gurdling roots, structure impacted by utility trimming, some crown defects and deadwood. Due to its clustering and utility trimming there is minimal canopy. – Remove

23rd Tree, 2nd Left on Fair: Honey Locust, slightly offset from wires, some impact from utility trimming. Some testimony was devoted to saving this tree. Although the tree has a some deadwood it could be mitigated through trimming without exceeding a 25% reduction to the crown. Unfortunately, the tree sits near the corner of Union Street and Fair Street. When the sidewalks are replaced, they will need to meet ADA standards with the appropriate curb cuts and ramps. In order to meet this standard, excavation and grade change will need to occur in extremely close proximity to the tree impacting its root structure. Additionally, as access to the site during construction is anticipated at this location, it may not be possible to maintain this tree through construction. Will permit the removal of the tree but request that it remain through the construction period if possible to help maintain shade with removal completed as part of the sidewalk project. Upon removal will require 17” of replacement.

24th Tree, 3rd Left on Fair: Species undetermined, significant deadwood, cracks in crown. Remove

25th Tree, 4th Left on Fair: Oak, significant utility trimming reducing crown, significant deadwood. Hazard trimming would result in over 25% reduction to crown. Remove

26th Tree, 5th Left on Fair: Species undetermined. The tree has grown from the remnants of a stump. Such growth is of poor structure and prone to failure. Remove

27th Tree, 6th Left of Fair: Honey Locust, invasive ivy growth, structure impacted through utility trimming, deadwood, signs of decay. Remove

28th Tree, 7th Left of Fair: Invasive Tree, non dominant stems. Remove

29th Tree, 8th Left of Fair: Oak, non dominant stems, poor structure, cracked leaders, significant deadwood. Remove


General discussion: Many of these trees are stressed, of poor form and structure, have significant defects and deadwood and meet the city’s standards for removal. These trees will be removed at the expense of the developer to meet their timelines for construction. Of the remaining ten (10) trees totaling 98” that do not meet these standards there is justification for removal to facilitate the development and in recognition of the stress that excavation and construction will put on the trees. For those that have already been impacted by utility pruning and with minimum crowns a one for one tree replacement is required. For those healthy trees that have full environmental and aesthetic benefits an inch for inch replacement is required. There are twenty-three (23) trees included in the approved site plan totaling 128”. While the site plan does not entirely conform to city standards, the design was reviewed and accepted as part of the site plan review process conditioned upon the execute a license/easement with the City and where the developer would assume responsibility for the maintenance these non-standard details. The current site plan includes 7 trees within the right of way and 5 additional offset trees with public benefit on private property totaling 55” which meet the city’s standards. These trees will be considered as offset replacements for removed trees.

Upon issuance of this decision and in consideration of the needed 37” already replaced required through the site plan, a permit will be issued for the removal of trees: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. 

The city encourages the developer to maintain trees 7, 21 and 23 requiring a total of 61” of replacement during construction to help to maintain their environmental benefits. Permits will be issued for the removal of these trees when the additional 43”[1] of replacement offset has been achieved through either modification of the existing planting plan to include more city standard trees approved as part of an amended site plan, the execution of the easement/license that recognizes responsibility of the developer for the additional inches of replacement trees included in the site plan or when the commensurate contribution to the City’s tree fund has been established.

According to the sec. 23 – 59, Any party aggrieved by this decision may, within ten days, appeal therefrom to the superior court for the judicial district”.

Submitted on March 21, 2019

Rebecca Bombero
Tree Warden, City of New Haven

Tags:

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

There were no comments