Conservation Commission Takes Next Steps on Parker School Tree Issue
The board met on Tuesday to discuss the problem stemming from clearcutting in the environmentally sensitive area.
The Chelmsford Conservation Commission continued discussion on the recent clear cutting incident at the Parker School, looking at topics from courses of action on addressing environmental and aesthetic to continued damage assessment.
Recently, all trees within 15 feet of the school were scheduled to be removed by a private contractor, only to have trees as far as 250 to 350 from the school removed, leaving the landscape of the area drastically different.
A date of January 8, 2013 was set for a preliminary enforcement order date for the “short term” portion of the restoration plan, with “medium term” and “long term” phases of the plan still pending.
Various actions such as reseeding certain areas near the school and planting taller grasses to hide stumps in wetland areas were discussed, although additional planning remains to fix the problems of sediment loss on the site.
Conservation Commission member Cori Rose describing that as much as five to seven inches of sediment has been lost in areas near the school recently due in large part to the cutting.
Rose, who works as a biologist, offered a series of suggestions to town engineers who will eventually submit a full plan on how to restore the site, although the board also requested outside expertise be consulted to help avoid conflict of interest concerns.
In addition to the sediment, other various problems still linger such as light pollution now seen from the school at night from neighbors on Princess Drive due to the lack of trees left between them and the school.
The School Committee was also in attendance to address concerns over an enforcement order for all portions of the plan defeating the original purpose of removal: limiting pine needles that damaged the school’s roof.
Only verbal instructions were given to the contractors who were assigned to do the job, who the Conservation Commission requested to see at an upcoming meeting to determine the full extent of how the incident occurred.
Bill Gerber
8:31 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
Not only did the recent action leave a partial wasteland at Parker, but it failed to take down a number of dead trees that threaten homes on the east side of Princess Ave.
Mark
11:00 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
I am sure our Town Manager has an iron clad contract for these services that will allow us to recoup some of the costs and improve the landscape. Wait a minute, these contracts are often not competitively bid and good luck getting copies if you request them!!! This is High Street all over again. Another bang up job by Chelmsford...
Jeff Hardy
12:11 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Wrong Mark,
That was exactly the problem, the town was forced to go to the "lowest bidder" and they eventually had their equipment repossessed. So then they went to thenext lowest bidder. If the town actuay had control, they would have the ability to work with local contractors who actualy pay taxes in town. And would have a vested interest in doing the best job for town.
This is not the fault of the TM or the directors in town. (but nice try on the implications......again
)
Mark
1:31 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Jeff,
As usual, another response where it's "no one's fault" or (my favorite) "that is not my responsibility". Where is the accountability? Who was overseeing the job? Was there a prep walk through?
If the town was forced to go with the lowest bidder, I am sure they were not forced to put together flawed requirements and contractual language in the RFP. Incorporate the requirements, warrentees, insurance, etc into the RFP, it will be priced accordingly and your lowest bidder (regardless of location) will be contractually held accountable.
Mark
jtalexander
1:41 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Jeff,
I have to agree with Mark, just because the job went to the second lowest bidder dosn't mean that there are no contract rights. If the job was not done properly why were they paid? As far as using people from town. How does that work. Say a business has an addresss in town but the owner leaves in Westford, I guess counts using your logic. How about someone who lives in town, but their business is located in Lowell, I guess they do not care, or so they. I am not sure why you believe that as companies location is a factor. Maybe the article is incomplete and there is going to be recourse. I would like to know. In that I seems like I do not have all the information, I can't assign blame yet, but I am also not prepared to let anyone off the hook either.
Jeff Hardy
2:13 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
irst of all,
There is something that is called a "mistake", they sometimes happen. Although I know many on this board think they are perfect. It's what we do about our mistakes that defines our character, in my opinion.
As far as the "local" reference. Again, just my opinion, if you pay taxes to the town, you should be first to be considered for the work. Not saying it's the only qualifier, but should be considered. Of course, as long as quality of work and the costs are within reason
jtalexander
2:38 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Jeff,
Mistakes still may happen, but that does not matter in a contract. Let's say you hire me to cut tree in your yard and I manage to let it crash on your house and cause damage. I guess it means your tough luck; I did not do it on purpose. Very rarely does the person do it on purpose. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, I just do not find it logical, in that what is local is subject to interoperation.
What I find interesting is just the slightest hint of criticism and you attack. I do not believe in my post that I intimated that I was perfect in anyway. I did see it would be nice to know more.
Jeff Hardy
3:01 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
JT, who did I attack?
I responded to your question about hiring local contractors. My other comment was toward Mark, who is always on the attack, so I rebutted.
If you felt I "attacked you" I apologize
jtalexander
3:03 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Jeff,
No problem, though I would still like to know why we as a town have to recourse for what seems to be faulty work.
Mark
6:46 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Jeff,
I am not on the attack, I am critical. At the rate I am being taxed, I expect accountability, transparency and excellence. In my opinion, I have seen none of these from our TM. Again, in my opinion.
Mark
Andrew Sylvia
11:09 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
Hi folks,
Please do not use obscenity, even abbreviated obscenity. It violates our terms of service. Thanks.
Mike Combs
9:09 am on Saturday, September 22, 2012
Why doesn't Chelmsford have recourse? Aren't contractors required to be bonded?
ron johnson
11:04 am on Sunday, September 23, 2012
I am with Mike on this. A follow up with the TM would be helpful as to what can and is being done. It seems like they caused real damage and should be responsible for the costs to repair.