It was another contentious Planning Board meeting on Monday night, as the debate continued between the board members and Stow Road resident Hillary Kavanagh over the removal of a cedar tree on a town right-of-way in front of Kavanagh’s home. On Aug. 16, the board had unanimously voted to issue a fine of $100 for the tree’s removal and to assess a fee of $1,900 for its replacement. At the Sept. 20 meeting Kavanagh went before the board to “tell her side of the story,” and ultimately questioned the board’s authority to impose a fine for replacing the tree.
Kavanagh came to Monday’s meeting with support in the form of Bruce Ringwall, president of Ayer engineering firm Goldsmith, Prest & Ringwall, Inc. Ringwall served as the chief engineer on the construction of the Kavanaghs’ home and was involved with the scenic road application that originally addressed the cedar tree in question.
Lisa Fox
From the outset of the conversation there was tension. Kavanagh had been given notification about this meeting in advance and had arranged a babysitter for her young children and arranged for Ringwall to be present. She was dismayed to receive a phone call earlier in the day from Land Use Administrator Liz Allard, notifying her that her place on that evening’s agenda was going to be postponed because not all board members were going to be present. The tension grew more pronounced when Kavanagh asked if she could record the meeting and Sudol refused her request. This refusal prompted her to ask Allard to make a note of her request in the minutes. (In a phone conversation with Kavanagh on Tuesday, she asserted that the denial of her request to record the meeting was a violation of Open Meeting Law.) She then went on to describe the events that led up to the removal of the tree.
Kavanagh stated that she and her husband, Paul, had returned home one day to find a police detail and workers from the Asplundh tree removal company at the end of their driveway. Asplundh, she said, was working to remove trees for the town and was cutting down a dead elm tree next to the driveway. When Paul went outside to talk with the workers, one of them inquired about the cedar tree and asked Paul if he would also like that tree removed. According to Kavanagh, her husband told the worker that he would, in fact, like it removed, but said that the town would not allow its removal. He then returned inside and when he came out a half hour later the tree had been cut down.
When asked by Planning Board member Joe Sudol why she didn’t immediately contact the board or the tree warden about the tree removal, Kavanagh stated that she had “called the highway department to have them come clean up the mess left by Asplundh,” and said she felt that was sufficient notification.
Sudol explained, “It isn’t up to the highway department to contact us—it is up to you, as a homeowner who was denied permission to remove the cedar tree.” He told Kavanagh that after hearing her story, his opinion was that the Kavanaughs “definitely played a role in the removal of the tree.”
Sudol went on to explain that the Planning Board has a process relating to bylaws, including their enforcement. He said that the decision had already been made, but the Kavanaghs had the right to appeal.
Kavanagh expressed displeasure that an appeal would be at the expense of her and her husband, and wanted to know what authority the board had to impose a punitive fine for tree replacement, when the town bylaw only addresses fines for tree removal.
Sudol explained to Kavanagh that the board’s reasoning was based on a previous ruling regarding trees that were removed by a homeowner near Bare Hill Pond. In addition to a fine, the homeowner was required to replace the trees. At this point, Kavanagh and Ringwall both became inflamed, with Ringwall pointing out to Sudol that the issue he mentioned was before the Conservation Commission and not the Planning Board. Therefore, he said, it could not be used as a precedent-setting decision
With tempers becoming heated, Sudol cut off further discussion and suggested that Town Counsel Mark Lanza be asked to rule on the question of the Planning Board’s authority to impose fines. Board members agreed.
Kavanaugh went on to say that she felt it was unfair that her family had not been notified about the meeting at which the decision had been made and that they had to find out about it in the newspaper. Further, she said she was surprised that board member Kara Minar was not present to discuss the issue, when she had been the most vocal proponent for fining the Kavanaghs.
In fact, the absence of two of the board members at Monday’s meeting, Minar and Craig Bardenheuer, caused the issue to be tabled once again.
Board member Lisa Fox apologized to Kavanagh for this and stated, “It doesn’t seem right to me that community members have to keep coming before us because someone [on the board] is not present.” Fox said discussion about the fine should be pushed to the Oct. 18 Planning Board meeting, when all parties were expected to be present, and that it should be resolved then.
Fellow member Wayne McFarland agreed that any further decisions should wait until all members could be present. Kavanagh agreed to return on Oct. 18.
