After Priscilla Douglas, a Spruce Street resident, passed by the stump-riddled property last week, she posted a short note on the South Union Front Porch Forum, titled “A Tree Lament and Rant.” Since then, a debate over what some have dubbed “de-forestation” has unfolded.
The property in question — 61 Summit Street — is owned by the University of Vermont. The erstwhile trees surrounded a striking Queen Anne Style house. Built in 1892 as a family home, it became a fraternity house until UVM purchased the property, in 2007, with plans to make the building its Alumni House.
UVM planning relations manager Lisa Kingsbury explained in an email to Douglas — who shared it on Front Porch Forum — that the university plans to construct another building and add a small parking area, which required cutting some of the trees. Others were diseased or invasive species— as was the case with the Norway Maples. Although the property currently looks barren, Kingsbury told Seven Days that UVM plans to plant 44 new trees — species such as blue spruce, river birch, and Cornelian cherry dogwood. She also noted that the university has worked closely with neighbors throughout the planning to make sure the construction didn’t create problems for them.
Not all residents are satisfied with Kingsbury’s explanation, and several have expressed dismay that UVM, which prides itself on a strong environmental focus, would choose to remove a number of striking trees. In a FPF post riffing off the famous Dr. Seuss book, Susanne Schmidt wrote,
I’m sure that the bushes and pavement and tar, will look just so splendid for alumni near and from far.People are also questioning how officials allowed this to happen. Did UVM need the city’s permission? Did it consult Burlington’s arborist? Why weren’t neighbors given a chance to weigh in?
Just think of the money that they will all give, as they stand in the place where the trees used to live.
The thing you forgot is that some alumni like trees,
and believe in their protection and aging with ease.
I hope this response will calm all your fears…,
this alumni won’t be contributing this year.
Love,
The Lorax
Senior city planner Mary O’Neil has been fielding queries like these for several days from city councilors and others. In the planning and zoning department in the basement of city hall, O’Neil unfurled the landscaping plans that UVM submitted and explained that, yes, UVM needed permission — and it got it.
The university submitted a construction proposal to the city in January, which included landscaping changes.
As former city councilor Norm Blais pointed out on Front Porch Forum, anyone proposing to remove six or more trees that are at least 10 inches in diameter, or 10 or more trees that are at least three inches in diameter, needs permission from the Burlington Development Review Board.
City staff and the development review board asked UVM to revise its landscaping plans twice — first to give greater detail about which trees would be removed and what would be planted in their stead, and a second time to request taller trees on one section of the property. After UVM submitted a third plan in June, the DRB approved their application. The DRB didn’t actually meet to review the third plan, O’Neil said, but its members were aware that UVM had complied with their request. Residents have suggested the DRB shirked its duty by neglecting to look at the final plan, but according to O’Neil, the approach the DRB followed is not uncommon. She emphasized that the project, including the proposed tree removals, underwent a thorough review.
When someone submits an application to the DRB, the city notifies abutting property owners and holds a public hearing for anyone who wants to weigh in. With UVM projects, the city isn’t required to send out those notifications, according to O’Neil, but, in this case, it did anyway. She pulled out a list of addresses that, she said, had received a letter. Those notices, however, wouldn’t have detailed UVM’s landscaping plans.
The city’s arborist only has say over trees planted in the public right-of-way, O’Neil added.
Burlington is no stranger to arbor ardor. Last fall, a local woman chained herself to a large cottonwood in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the parks department from removing it. Some posters to the South Union Front Porch Forum have suggested that the tree-hugging disposition of their neighbors is over-the-top. But plenty others still see it as a sign that city leaders are failing to live up to the city’s green reputation.
Douglas, who said she recognized that sometimes trees must be removed, sent Seven Days a statement to explain why she was so upset by the Summit Street stumps. “Trees are the heart and soul of Burlington. Many of them have been here for generations so are part of Burlington’s history as well. I wished I had had a chance to express my feelings about the trees and to understand why they were cut down.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Not cool, UVM.
While the city arborist might only have “say” over trees planted in the public right of way, that misses the point. We have in the city’s employ someone who is an expert on trees. Why would the city not consult him? Why didn’t UVM? The only answer is that either or both failed to recognize the important role of trees in our community. New ones aren’t the equivalent of old ones. I am on the parks commission and am familiar with the work that our parks department has put into the goal of increasing the canopy cover provided by trees in the city. We can’t get there by street trees alone. We need private land owners to step up. UVM should be a leader in this area, and while perhaps not deceitful they have shown callous indifference to the importance and value of preserving significant old trees in our community–to make way for a parking lot of all things.
Private property? As long as the cutting was legal and permitted (which this article says it was), it’s nobody’s business but the owner’s.
Trees are what make a city beautiful. UVM just made part of it ugly, and they didn’t even want to discuss it, cause they do not care how anyone feels about it. To them a tree is worthless – cutting a tree is valuable. That stinks. And what they did stinks. They could have left some trees. Diseased, ho ho ho.
The stumps in the picture look like ash trees to me. If they are, it should be noted that seven Vermont towns have created Community Preparedness Plans to remove all ash trees that will die from the disease caused by the emerald ash borer. The ash borer kills the trees by cutting off nutrients to the tree and the die within a year. It’s not a question of if it is coming, the question is when. Randolph plans to drop hundreds of ash trees that would fall into roads or damage structures when they fall.
Ha, ha! “Green City”, what a joke.
Burlington electric cuts and burns literally millions of trees each year (not waste) to fuel the McNeil biomass burner that spews all that “green” carbon from those once growing now vaporized trees. Really.
See:
http://www.energyjustice.net/content/elect…
OK to be certain the removal of 36 trees didn’t improve the landscape (at least in the short term). However, UVM followed the regulations and DRB processes that city dwellers have approved of – including the planting of 44 new trees. Frankly – unless UVM had circumvented the regulations – I don’t see why this issue warrants such venom. If you weren’t aware of the plan, or just have such a love for all trees, then perhaps you should do something about it; go to city council meetings, run for office or get a petition going to modify the rules, etc. However, be careful what you wish for – you could end up needing/wanting to remove a tree – only to be informed you’re not allowed to. Burlington, as I recall, is rigorous about the permitting process in general – but especially when the property involves a building eligible for historic preservation (50+ years old).
Trees can get diseases. So can people. Sure, a tree could fall and damage something, but guess what – no matter what the city does, some tree will fall and damage something someday anyway. And, some tree that might catch a disease will not catch that disease. Sure, death is only a question of “when”. Life is a liability. But I still think a parking lot is (in the long run) a liability – it erases nature. As for Randolph – it’s not the only bad idea they are considering down there. They plan to “drop” hundreds of ash trees? I’ll bet anything they’ve signed with a tree service already, and I’ll bet they run out of money before they plant those tiny new trees. Maybe I’m cynical – but so is the person who decided those trees should go before there were/are any problems with them.