Staff
Council denied a request from a local resident Monday to retain three trees planted on the boulevard in front of their home at 236 Second St. East.
The town is asking that the three trees located on the boulevard in front of the residence be either relocated another part of the property there, or the town will buy them at a reasonable cost and relocate them to the waterfront.
The town received a letter of complaint regarding the trees this summer, and contacted property owner Dr. Carol Begin about them.
In response, Dr. Begin wrote the town, seeking approval to allow the trees to stay where they are.
“The trees have been thriving along the boulevard since 2004 without complaint or incident,” he wrote.
“The trees are the same kind of heritage trees which exist all along Second Street, chosen to keep with the picturesque scenery of the town,” continued Dr. Begin, adding he would assume complete responsibility for fees and maintenance of the trees to ensure the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Dr. Begin’s request was reviewed by the Planning and Development executive committee (PDEC), with input from the Operations and Facilities executive committee (OFEC), and recommended that the request be denied.
In a report from Planning and Development Supt. Rick Hallam, he noted that PDEC recognizes there are many locations along boulevards in town where over many years trees have been planted by the town or private citizens.
However, the town now recognizes that this practice has become costly to the town and residents to maintain below grade infrastructure, and in some cases, presenting visual obstructions to vehicular traffic.
“In recent years, it has become the practice of the town to remove and not replace the trees along boulevards that are showing decay from age or other means,” noted Hallam, adding it also has become the practice of senior administration to recommend that council deny such requests for reasons stated in a report from the OFEC.
According to the OFEC:
•The trees are a safety issue for motorists and pedestrian, reducing sightlines and visibility;
•The tree roots will eventually find their way into sanitary service lines and mains, requiring maintenance and being an in convenience to the property owner;
•The trees will cause an increase in ongoing maintenance costs for the town (e.g. tree-trimming tasks, unblocking sanitary service lines);
•Difficult situations can arise. Eventually, homes have different owners. If the town grants permission to property owners to plant trees on right of the town’s way, and the property owner’s move, there is no agreement in place registered against the property. The history is lost as to who is responsible for what.
The OFEC report also noted that since 2003, the town has received only two other requests from property owners to plant trees on the town’s right of way. In both cases, the town denied the respective property owner’s request.
In this case, Dr. Begin did not request permission to plant these three trees before doing so.
The OFEC report also pointed out that the water and sewer lines for the property might be in conflict with the westerly maple tree, and “in the event that these service lines need to be repaired of replaced near the north boulevard, the westerly maple tree would have to be destroyed due to exposing the service lines.”
“While planting of trees in the community is a good thing, the Operations and Facilities Division’s position on the subject is that the trees should not be planted within the town’s [right of way] as eventually there will be additional maintenance and operational costs, safety concerns and customer inconvenience,” wrote the OFEC.
