View of driveway at 339 Stow Road. Stump of former cedar tree can be seen in the foreground (Courtesy photo)

On the agenda for the Aug. 16 Planning Board meeting was the discussion of a scenic road violation at 339 Stow Road. The location was formerly a Christmas tree farm that was sold and converted into two home sites in 2007, one of which is now the home of Hillary and Paul Kavanagh. At issue is the removal of a cedar tree on the town-owned right of way at the base of their driveway.

In the course of building their home in July 2007, the Kavanaghs approached the Planning Board at a meeting on July 16 of that year, with a request to remove the cedar tree. The Kavanaghs stated that the tree was dangerous and obstructed their view when entering the roadway. Liz Allard, land use administrator, conducted a site review and photographic analysis and brought the results back to the Planning Board. Upon review of the findings, the Planning Board determined the Kavanaghs’ concerns were unwarranted and denied their request to remove the cedar tree.

The Planning Board believed the cedar tree was no longer an issue until they were contacted by Department of Public Works Director Richard Nota on Aug. 8, 2010, notifying the board that the tree had been cut down. According to Harvard’s Scenic Road bylaws and Massachusetts General Law 40 Section 21 D, removal of a tree from town-owned property is a violation and warrants a fine. In Harvard, the designated fine is $100.

During discussion of the issue, Planning Board members said they felt the penalty for cutting the tree was not strong enough. Board member Kara McGuire Minar suggested that the Kavanaghs be required to pay the fine and replace the tree. Tree Warden Christian Bilodeau, who was present at the meeting, stated that in the past, individuals who had committed similar offenses had been required to do just that. The board asked Bilodeau to consult a subcontractor and determine a value for the tree and the cost of replanting. Board members concurred, and Chairman Joe Sudol requested a letter be sent to the Kavanaghs with their decision and the figures from the subcontractor.

When the Press contacted the Kavanaghs about the tree in question, they emphatically denied removing it and were incensed by the accusation. Homeowner Hillary Kavanagh said, “I am very distressed that we were not directly notified by the Planning Board or Liz Allard about being on the agenda. I think they should definitely have to contact people so they can be present to defend themselves. We are being treated very unfairly. We did not cut down that tree or pay anyone to cut it down.”

According to Kavanagh, a few weeks ago someone from the utility company came out and cut down two trees on either side of the driveway, the cedar being one of them.

“The foreman told me that the trees were a hazard to the power lines,” she said, adding that he told her his crew was working with approval from Bilodeau.

She said the company left all the wood there and the Kavanaghs had to clean it up and remove it themselves.

When asked by the Press to respond to Kavanagh’s claim, Bilodeau stated that in fact several trees in Harvard had been cut on that day by the National Grid’s tree contractor, Asplundh. However, Bilodeau said he was present when all the trees to be cut were marked by power company workers, and he specifically pointed out the cedar tree and told them it was not to be cut down.

Additionally, Jessie Dobbs, senior arborist for National Grid, provided a copy of the Hazardous Tree Overhead Removal Summary Sheet to Bilodeau and said the cedar tree was not listed. According to Dobbs, “No one spoke to a homeowner at 339 Stow Road that day, and our crew did not have authorization to cut that tree down. The only tree that was tagged at that address was a dead ash that was loaded with poison ivy.”

As of Friday, Aug. 20, the Planning Board was going forward with the fine of $100 and a request that the Kavanaghs pay $1,900 to replace the cedar tree, based on estimates provided by Bilodeau.

Sudol said the Kavanaghs have the right to appeal the decision.