AMHERST — Town officials are abandoning plans to cut down a large white oak tree to improve driver and pedestrian safety on South East Street after residents on whose property the tree is located asked that it remain standing.
Though the tree’s removal was recommended by the Department of Public Works, the Select Board, which would have been final arbiter on whether to chop the tree down, is deferring to the request from 666 South East St. residents Christopher Benfey and Mickey Rathbun.
In May, Benfey and Rathbun wrote a letter asking that the public hearing on the tree’s removal be canceled.
“In requesting that the town leave the oak tree where it stands we are not relinquishing our efforts to hold the town accountable for promoting safety for all users of South East Street,” the couple wrote in the May 8 letter. “We are, instead, calling for your redoubled efforts.”
Select Board Chairwoman Alisa Brewer confirmed in an email last week that no action will be taken on the tree, which measures 20½ inches in diameter at its breast height and is believed to be healthy.
Brewer said Peter Hechenbleikner, interim town manager, consulted with the DPW and determined that the board didn’t have to take action.
The decision by the DPW to pursue removing the tree to improve sightlines on the road prompted a joint hearing mandated by the scenic road bylaw by the Planning Board and Tree Warden Alan Snow in April.
Even though the board narrowly voted in favor of removing the tree, Snow opposed this action.
In addition, James Perot, of Summer Strreet, submitted a letter appealing for the tree’s well being.
These results triggered an anticipated hearing before the Select Board. According to town bylaws “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.”
The concept of removing the tree also led to other actions, including two artists who staged a protest near the site by setting up easels and painting the tree, and a letter to the editor from sixth-grade students at the Smith College Campus School who wrote, “We don’t want the tree to die unjustly, nor all the animals and insects that are living in the tree.”
Benfey and Rathbun said they might be unfairly targeted for actions by the DPW.
“Removal of the oak tree was never a centerpiece of proposed efforts to improve safety on a dangerous hill and a dangerous road,” they wrote. “We now fear that the needless controversy surrounding the tree will preclude other potentially more effective proposals, such as speed bumps, warning lights, stop signs, speed monitors, increased police presence and other possible measures that we have urged the town to consider.”
The DPW has already taken other steps to make the road safer, acting on recommendations made in a report by Lisa Sherman, project manager at CDM Smith of Providence, Rhode Island. These included replacing worn-out traffic and speed limit signs, adding new warning signs and a stop sign for a side street.
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
