AMHERST — A rare disagreement between some of the town’s Planning Board members and its tree warden has left the fate of a large white oak tree on South East Street in limbo.
The Department of Public Works is recommending removing the tree to make the road safer for residents and drivers. Tree Warden Alan Snow, however, argues that the tree is healthy and does not pose significant safety problems for drivers.
Snow voted against cutting down the tree in front of 666 South East St. at a joint hearing with the Planning Board Wednesday. The hearing was necessary because the road is designated as a scenic road.
While the seven members of the Planning Board narrowly approved the tree’s demise, the divided vote, coupled with a letter of concern from a resident issued before the meeting, means the tree will be spared until the Select Board acts on the request.
“If the town would still like to remove the tree, the decision has to go to the Select Board,” Christine Brestrup, the town’s interim planning director, said in a telephone interview Friday.
This is spelled out on the town’s website, which states that “when there is an irreconcilable dispute between the Planning Board and the tree warden, or if a written objection to a removal is filed by a citizen prior to or at the hearing, the matter of removal of the trees will go to the Select Board, which has jurisdiction over public ways, for final resolution.”
Planning Board members Bruce Carson, Christine Gray-Mullen, Richard Roznoy and Gregory Stutsman supported the tree’s removal, but board Chairman Stephen Schreiber, Rob Crowner and Pari Riahi were against.
With 26 Amherst roads designated as scenic by a vote in November 1974, Schreiber said hearings to determine the fate of trees and stone walls are common. This one, though, was complicated by the opposing views, with Schreiber stating it “is uncommon when there is disagreement.”
Removing the tree, which measures 20½ inches in diameter at its breast height, is part of continuing improvements to South East Street, in which Brestrup said the DPW and town have taken a closer look at safety.
These have included replacing worn-out traffic and speed limit signs, adding new warning signs and a stop sign for a side street. The recommendations were made in a report by Lisa Sherman, project manager at CDM Smith of Providence, Rhode Island.
“They determined there was one particular tree that seemed to be a problem for people, and if it was removed, sight distances would be better for everybody,” Brestrup said.
The idea of taking down this tree comes nearly three years after homeowners Mickey Rathbun and Christopher Benfey sought to remove 10 trees in the town’s right of way so they could move their driveway 60 feet south.
They found this cost prohibitive as they were asked to make a $6,300 payment to the town as compensation, on top of the expenses of clearing the trees.
Benfey and Rathbun said in an email that they appreciate the new signs and that the town has identified a tree obstructing views of drivers coming over the hill near their house. But they said they still want to see more traffic calming and aggressive actions to reduce the speed of drivers.
In addition to Snow’s concerns about removing a healthy tree, two members of the Shade Tree Committee, Nonny Burack and Nancy Higgins, also spoke in favor of saving the tree, though chairman Henry Lappen said Friday that the committee has yet to take a vote. He expects that vote to be taken at its meeting Tuesday.
The only letter of opposition to the tree removal came from James Perot, of 15 Summer St.
“South East Street is a scenic roadway and trees — every tree — are an essential element in that scenery which is a gift for everyone traveling along that way,” Perot wrote in his email.
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
