posted by Mike Madison at 11:34 PM /
From the most recent newsletter of Blue Horse Coffee, on Washington Road, here is a tale of newly demised trees. For what it's worth, I've learned that when it comes to trees being cut down, there is almost always more to the story. Perhaps those in the know can help fill in details.
Updated 5/28 (same day as the original post): I've received two notes that offer "more to the story." One is that the lessee here (Pazzo, apparently) may have a "ground lease" rather than (or in addition to) a lease of the building. If that's right, the "ground lease" may give them broader powers to make changes to the property than merely renovate the space. Two is that the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon was not involved in "permitting" or "approving" the removal of the trees. According to Steve Feller, the manager of the Municipality, Mt. Lebanon was not consulted in advance regarding removal of these trees, and ordinarily Mt. Lebanon doesn't regulate the removal of any trees on private property - unless the trees are hazardous. So the tenant may have done something foolish here, but the tenant may have been within its legal rights, and the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon appears to be off the hook. That isn't the end of the question, even legally. The incoming tenant does have active permits on the property, as to renovation, signage, and occupancy. I don't know what's within the scope of those permits, or what the tenant would claim is within the scope of those permits. Also, the original approved site plan, dating from the original development of the property, may include landscaping requirements, and those landscaping requirements may point to trees (the Blue Horse newsletter suggests that it does). And the terms of the lease(s) should be consulted. As before, there is probably more to the story.
Updated 5/28 (same day as the original post): I've received two notes that offer "more to the story." One is that the lessee here (Pazzo, apparently) may have a "ground lease" rather than (or in addition to) a lease of the building. If that's right, the "ground lease" may give them broader powers to make changes to the property than merely renovate the space. Two is that the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon was not involved in "permitting" or "approving" the removal of the trees. According to Steve Feller, the manager of the Municipality, Mt. Lebanon was not consulted in advance regarding removal of these trees, and ordinarily Mt. Lebanon doesn't regulate the removal of any trees on private property - unless the trees are hazardous. So the tenant may have done something foolish here, but the tenant may have been within its legal rights, and the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon appears to be off the hook. That isn't the end of the question, even legally. The incoming tenant does have active permits on the property, as to renovation, signage, and occupancy. I don't know what's within the scope of those permits, or what the tenant would claim is within the scope of those permits. Also, the original approved site plan, dating from the original development of the property, may include landscaping requirements, and those landscaping requirements may point to trees (the Blue Horse newsletter suggests that it does). And the terms of the lease(s) should be consulted. As before, there is probably more to the story.
As we mentioned in a recent newsletter, a new restaurant, Pazzo Ristorante, will open soon next door to Blue Horse. The restaurant owners are busy making some changes, like remodeling and painting, as you might expect. One of the changes they made, though, was quite unexpected. This past Friday, the four, perfectly healthy, 40-year old oak trees that stood in the grassy area out front along Route 19, were cut down. These were lovely, tall trees that provided good shade for our shop, and provided a nice, green buffer between our shop and the busy road. Many of you have already asked us why the trees were cut down, and you’ve expressed anger and disappointment over this. We’re going to tell you what we’ve been told.
The owners of Pazzo (who are leasing the space, by the way; they did not buy the property), somehow obtained authorization from Mt. Lebanon to cut the trees down. This authorization was given despite the fact that the family that owns the property was not notified, and did not grant permission for this. We can tell you that the property owners, an extremely sweet, gentle, older couple that live nearby, are extremely upset about this. Annette and I truly love these people, and we are upset that they are upset. After the trees came down, we found out that Pazzo plans to put a sprinkler system and some type of decorative garden planting out front. That’s why the trees were cut down, so this tenant could put in some plants and sprinklers.
To us, this is so wrong on so many levels. The property owner told us that, ironically, Mt. Lebanon required those trees to be planted all those years ago, because the township wanted a green area in this part of Rt. 19. The trees had to be 3-inches in diameter at the time of planting, and now, decades later, the township okayed the destruction of these healthy trees, by a tenant of the property. The tenant has shown great disrespect, to say the least, by doing this without the permission of the property owners. The tenant has also shown a grave lack of foresight. After all, there are no guarantees in this world, and if the new restaurant does not succeed, then there will be a sprinkler system and garden that nobody will maintain, and no trees. And, of course, with no shade on the southwestern front of the building, air conditioning usage will increase, the electric bills will increase, and Blue Horse and Pazzo will unnecessarily be using more energy. Presumably, the sprinkler system will unnecessarily use more water as well.
We don’t know the workings of the Mt. Lebanon government, or under what authority or rationale the permission was given. We do know that our shop is located in Ward 3 of Mt. Lebanon, and that Joe DeIuliis is the Ward 3 Commissioner. His e-mail is jdeiuliis@mtlebanon.org, and his phone number is (412) 670-2584, and he deserves your input. As another little ironic twist, Mt. Lebanon has a new Environmental Sustainability Board, that’s looking for Board members. This is “a newly created advisory board that will promote environmental awareness and will recommend ways for the municipality and the district to save energy.” We also know that Pazzo Ristorante is owned by a local company called Culinary Concepts (Amigo’s, Lemont, Café Euro) and their website is http://www.culinaryconceptspittsburgh.com/.
We are happy to hear what you think about this. If you are displeased by the trees being cut down, please e-mail us and let us know. We will prepare a letter to the editor of the Mt. Lebanon Magazine to express the collective opinion, and your input will help tremendously in that regard.
That’s all for now, everyone. Thank you for your time and your business.
Annette and Melissa
Labels: losing trees
22 Comments:
That is indeed a shame. In the months leading up to our move I noticed several very large Oak Trees which were cut down in our neighborhood, which is also Ward 3, Joe DeIllius's ward. These were the types of Oak trees that gave the neighborhood its character. From past experience I can tell anyone who wants to email Commish Joey D about this issue not to waste their time. I've email Joe in the past about traffic issues in our ward. He never responded. In fact, the only email Commish Joe responded to was I wrote to him regarding climate change and the proposed environmental board for the municipality. You see, Joe is one of those guys who thinks all environmentalists are kooks and that climate change and global warming are a part of the vast left wing conspiracy. You'll get no sympathy, or help for that matter, from Joe on trees being cut down in his ward.
Schultz,
I guess I don't exactly see that as being the root of the problem. The problem is that the township gave permission to someone who didn't have the right to ask for permission. Someone should be verifying that the requester is the actual owner of the property or has written permission from the owner, and not just giving the OK to anyone who calls.
This goes whether its for removing trees, doing construction, or any other activity that needs to be cleared by the township first.
The Commish is not the root of the problem - I was just saying that he isn't responsive and won't give two you know whats if people write to him about trees being cut down.
The owners should plant 4 new trees to replace the ones cut down. Maybe get a youth group involved. Have the tenant pay the cost of the new trees.
A few random thoughts:
1. What do the owners of Blue Horse hope to accomplish with this blog/email campaign against their new neighbors? The trees are gone and no amount of email, letters to the editor or public humiliation of the restaurant operators will bring them back. Do they think that turning people against this new business before it even opens its doors is the best way to ensure that it (and its gardens) will thrive and prosper? Doesn't Blue Horse potentially benefit from having a busy tenant next door? So, why the venom - at least in such a public forum? Play nice.
2. The township's tree removal policy/ordinance only applies to trees in public areas - not trees on private property. Sorry folks, but Mt. Lebanon can't tell me that I can't cut down my trees. A "public area" is any public right of way, easement, park or other property owned by the municipality. It should be noted, however, that someone does need to apply for a permit to remove a tree on private property if the tree might reasonably be expected to fall in a public area during removal or the removal might interfere with pedestrian or vehicle traffic on a public right-of-way. That might be why the tenants asked for the township's blessing.
3. Others here have suggested that the tenant didn't have the authority to deal with the township on this issue. How the heck do you know? Have you read the lease? If the tenant didn't have the right to make such changes to the property and in doing so violated its lease, the landlord has a remedy. It's an issue to be resolved between the landlord and the tenant, and not all of Mt. Lebanon.
4. Regardless of your thoughts on trees, do people seriously think that our town is run in such a manner that our individual Commissioners are notified before or after trees are cut down in their respective Wards? I don't know the Commissioners' individual positions on "green" stuff, but what kind of response would you expect from even the most green Commissioner after trees have been removed from private property or public areas in accordance with the township's ordinance? Is "Sorry" enough? What do you want from them?
5. And just so no one accuses me of playing favorites, if this restaurant goes over like some of the group's earlier endeavors, I'm afraid the dire predictions about the unattended gardens may be spot on. If I'm not mistaken, this is the same group that closed the ever popular, always crowded Colony Restaurant and Tambellini's on Rt. 51 to transform them into hollow, rent-a-banquet rooms. And we all know how Mike feels about Amigos.....
As unfortunate and dimwitted as it was to cut down these trees, Dave does have a point: This issue appears to be between the tenants and the owners of the property.
That being said Dave, I think one of the things that Blue Horse and some of the bloggers here would hope to accomplish is raise some public pressure on needlessly cutting down mature trees.
Whether green or not, mature trees add to the attractiveness of an area, property values, etc and cutting them down willy-nilly seems incredibly reckless--especially if you have it occurring broadly. So if raising a big stink about it makes several more people think twice about dropping an oak tree that they don't have to, then that's probably a good thing.
Another unfortunate fact is that sometimes dropping trees is completely necessary and warranted (this doesn't seem to be the case with Pazzo's though). If they dropped 4 oak trees for no other reason than to put in a garden bed, then that is a really dumb opening act on their part. Did they not notice that Mt. Lebanonites take a great deal of pride in their trees?
...and they dug up Bagshot Row and tossed me old Gaffer out in the street!
Agreed, and my posts were not meant to imply that the commission could do anything about trees on private property (just that he wouldn't give two you know whats if you told him about it).
I've heard that some people are having the 50 year old oaks cut down because they are tired of taking care of all the leaves from them.
Then call or email those folks - not the Commissioners. I, for one, hope the Commissioners have better things to devote their efforts towards.
We were surprised when a customer said that the Blue Horse newsletter was on Blog - Lebo. As one of the commentators noted, why all this in such a public forum?
First, the newsletter was sent ONLY to Blue Horse email subscribers. This discussion was never intended to be held in a public forum. We certainly did not send our newsletter to Blog-Lebo, or to anyone, for public posting. If we had been asked if we wanted it to be posted in such a forum, we would have said NO. Starting last Friday (the day the trees were cut down), customer after customer entered our shop, asking what happened to the trees. Probably 9 out of 10 inquiries fell somewhere between disappointed and outraged. So we composed our e-mail to our customers, and sent it only to them. The fact that our letter was posted on this blog without our permission, is pretty ironic, given the circumstances of the tree-cutting.
The email to our customers was meant to do a couple of things. First, to answer customer questions. Second, given that we'd been told that "Mt. Lebanon had okayed the tree-cutting" (more on this below), we felt that there must be a serious flaw in the Mt. Lebanon approval process that needed to be addressed; hence, the Ward Commissioner and tenant information. Third, we wanted to champion the cause of our property owners. They are upset. They were, we believe, treated disrespectfully. They are a local couple who are in our shop every day. In other words, it would have been pretty easy for the new tenant to say, "hey, here's what we plan for this space out front, okay?"
Now, as to our statement that "Mt. Lebanon okayed this." Last Friday, after 2 of the trees had come down, the "Mister" of the property owners, arrived. He knew the crew doing the work, and spoke with one of them as to why the trees were coming down. During that discussion, Mister was told that Mt. Lebanon had okayed the work. In talking with Mister immediately after that discussion, and after Mister had called the new tenant's contact person to get further information, Mister told us about the garden and sprinkler system plans. I can tell you that Mister was visibly shaken as all this was going on, and how upset it made us that he was so upset. When we saw his wife the next day, she was also quite upset.
So, yeah, we are upset about all this. Did we express our frustration and sympathy for the property owners in our email (granted, maybe more harshly than we should have)? Yes. Was that proper? Well, maybe, maybe not. I tell you, though, that if Mister and Mrs. had authorized this work, or if they had not been upset by all this, then probably an email briefly answering customer questions would have been sent so people wouldn’t have to ask when they came in.
I would also say that this was not intended to be an email campaign against the new neighbors. Clearly, we have nothing to benefit in attacking the new restaurant. Besides answering customer questions and deflecting customer disappointment/anger from the property owners, this was supposed to generate examination of what we thought was a flawed municipal process. Knowing how green Mt. Lebanon is, we thought that this incident should be more closely examined, hopefully to prevent such future incidents.
Speaking personally, we're not happy that the trees are gone. We do wish the new restaurant had been able to compromise the look they want and work with the trees, but that didn't happen. As stated above, customers’ reactions range from disappointed and sad, to angry and retaliatory. And that was BEFORE we sent the email. In other words, the email did not initiate the reactions, the tree-cutting did.
So anyway, these are our further thoughts on the matter. From now on, Blue Horse emails will be marked that they cannot be reprinted in any form without our prior permission, and in fact, we'd appreciate the removal of our email from this site.
Thank you.
Melissa and Annette
Melissa and Annette and all,
I don't see any irony in the BH newsletter being posted here. The newsletter went out to the public, and one of the public -- a regular reader of this blog -- sent it to me and suggested that I post a story about the trees on the blog. I did just that -- because as many people in Mt. Lebanon know, tree removal is an issue that has generated an awful lot of passion locally over the last few years. Generating more public discussion and examination of tree removal processes and procedures is a great thing -- but how else do you do that except in a public forum (such as this one, which is a pretty well-known local public forum)? It seems to me that the newsletter has had precisely the impact that it was intended to have.
As one of the admins and authors for the blog, I can say that I receive all kinds of interesting email from our readers, forwarding messages that circulate in the local ether. These concern schools and school directors, commissioners and volunteer boards, neighbors and athletic coaches and directors. To the surprise of no one, Mt. Lebanon is a little seething cauldron of activity. Most of those emails stay private, off the blog, because they justifiably raise questions of privacy and confidentiality that outweigh possible questions of public interest. In this case, though, the contents of the BH message consisted of a broadcast newsletter sent by a local business on a topic of general, non-private, non-confidential interest. I neither know nor care who the mass of BH customers are, but it's simply not true that a local coffee shop has some kind of "private" relationship with "its" customers for purposes of broadcast discussions of things that go on outside the walls of the business. If you want to keep secrets, then keep it in the store or use the telephone. The fact that the BH newsletter ended up on Blog-Lebo is no more surprising or unreasonable than the fact that it might have ended up in the Almanac, the Post-Gazette, or the New York Times.
Mike - Just so my silence is not construed as assent -
I absolutely had no expectation or intention of the BH newsletter ending up on a blog. Our newsletters are intended only for those that sign up for them (not the "public," as you assert). If they were intended for general public viewing, they would be posted on our own website. So yes, it was surprising that you put this on your blog. If I had mailed our newsletter to customers the old-fashioned way, I certainly would not have expected it to end up in a public forum either.
With respect to your suggestion that I "use the telephone," do you mean that if I'd left voicemails rather than emails about the trees, you wouldn't even consider using it on the blog? Sorry, Mike, I don't see the distinction.
You said, "Generating more public discussion and examination of tree removal processes and procedures is a great thing -- but how else do you do that except in a public forum (such as this one, which is a pretty well-known local public forum)?"
My answer to your question is: ask if you can use someone else's material. It's a matter of simple courtesy.
Melissa
Melissa,
The BH newsletter was clearly and obviously intended for general distribution. What you thought you were sending isn't the point; what matters is what the people who received and saw the newsletter believed they were getting. On the face of the newsletter, there's no evidence that it's a private message. It has a BH company logo; it says "newsletter" and "Volume 3 Number 8" -- not exactly the hallmarks of a private message to a list of personal friends. If you think that it was private, then you should take some of those "friends" (your customers) off of your mailing list, because they clearly don't treat it that way. One of your customers sent the newsletter to me and suggested that I publish it. Maybe you should have all newletter recipients sign a contract in which they promise to treat the BH newsletter as private and confidential and never share it with anyone.
Had the newsletter contained anything that appeared to be remotely personal, confidential, private, or sensitive -- to anyone -- I certainly would have asked before posting any of it. Had the commentary about the trees come from a personal email address, to a personal email list (rather than in the form of a business newsletter), again I would have asked before posting any of it. In fact, under any of those circumstances, it probably wouldn't have occurred to me that the thing might be posted at all. I'm well-aware of the fact that the people who appear on the blog and who read the blog are, for the most part, my friends and neighbors, and I have no interest in crossing neighborly boundaries just for the heck of it. I post about things that are relevant to the community at large. This was Blue Horse Coffee speaking about an issue of obvious public concern, not one person chatting over the email fence to a pal. The expectation of privacy, and the expectation of "courtesy," is no greater in this case than it would be (as I wrote earlier) if the newsletter were picked up by the Almanac (and who knows - read next week's paper!), or the PG, or even the Times.
It's a long-standing informal understanding online that no one should put anything in an email message that they wouldn't be willing to have appear in the New York Times (or on CNN, or on a Jumbotron in Times Square). (I've found online references to that point that go back at least ten years.) That doesn't mean that everything in an email message will or should end up blasted all over the world (who knows where else the BH newsletter goes?). But it does mean that the "Casablanca" reaction to newsletter being publicized ("I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here!") rings pretty hollow.
It's unfortunate if you regret what you wrote. I'm glad that you wrote it; to me, the whole point here is that you re-raised an important issue about trees in Mt. Lebanon and gave it renewed energy.
In fact, it's all about the trees. It's regrettable that the important point has been sidetracked by this tiny teapot tempest over the newsletter itself.
The owner of Culinary Concepts is local entrepreneur Ed Dunlap, who can be reached at the offices of his roofing company Centimark if you want to express your opinion directly:
Centimark
12 Grandview Circle
Canonsburg, PA 15317
1-800-558-4100
If anyone learns why they decided to remove the trees I hope they will post the answer here. Obviously it was a business decision. I'd be interested to know what it was about those trees that was viewed as detrimental to their business.
Folks, what these people choose to do on private property is their business. You and I may not approve of it, but get over it.
What if your neighbor paints his house an awful shade of purple? Should we picket? Perhaps take out an ad in the Almanac to protest?
Here's another hypothetical . . . you have a great vegetable garden in your backyard that gets plenty of sunshine. However, your new neighbor elects to put a nice addition on his house. By all accounts, its a great piece of work. However, it all but eliminates the sunshine that once allowed your tomatoes and squash to grow. Your garden will never be the same. Should we call and email you neighbor to tell him that he's a public disgrace for ruining you garden?
Or how about the situation that faces many young Lebo families . . . you've added a second or third child and that great starter home is now just a bit too tight. You look around and soon realize that the cost of upgrading to a 3rd or 4th bedroom or a 2d bathroom in this town is darn near prohibitive (and comes with a much larger tax bill). Hmm. . . to build or to add on? Many of us have faced this decision. But wait, adding will require that you remove a healthy tree in the side yard. Should the threat of vicious emails, calls and letters from strangers discourage you from making a decision with YOUR property that is in the best interests of your family and your financial well being?
Look, the truth of the matter is that most folks in Lebo and the municipal govt itself are respectful of the community's trees and thankfully they're not being knocked down left and right. These folks might have had 10 good reasons to do what they did, or they might have had 1 or perhaps none. You might not like their decision to remove a few trees, but you have to live with it. . . . much like your neighbors must live with the decisions that you elect to make (or not make) with respect to your own property.
Not everything that I want to do with my property, or on my property, is legal just because it's my property. If someone in my neighborhood decides to have a bonfire in his back yard, because it's his property, I'm going to call the Fire Department, and someone else will probably call the Police Department, and we'll have every legal right to complain. The same principle applies to the Municipality's program to recognize and compel private homeowners to remove "hazardous" trees. I even have a neighbor who received a threatening notice from the Municipality after someone complained that the grass in the front lawn was too long (it was being reseeded; it's Spring, you know).
My point is only that the "private property" argument is never a complete argument. The public often has a good right to get involved (though the grass-in-the-front-yard example was over the top, to me).
Mt. Lebanon has two minds when it comes to community spirit. With respect to community amenities like public safety, schools, and libraries, folks who object to paying premium taxes to support these things are excoriated for not chipping in to maintain the special character of Mt. Lebanon. (Many of the commenters here, including Dave Franklin, take a more balanced view.) When it comes to what happens inside the lot lines of our property, however, which often has an impact on Mt. Lebanon's special character that is just as significant as the services that we support with our taxes, then the majority instinct seems to be "damn the community; I get to do whatever I please." (Here, I'm not noting Dave's comment so much as recalling the comment thread on the now-deleted "Secret Steps" post.)
It's obvious that the legal system treats the two categories differently. My point is that there is an inconsistency in the attitudes of the citizenry. I don't buy the "Mt. Lebanon is a special place" line in the first place, but I do think that people who want to have a balanced discussion about the private aspects of public resources should also want to have a balanced discussion about the public aspects of private resources.
Now we're beating a blue horse.
If a tree falls in Mt. Lebanon, does it make a sound?
Folks, what these people choose to do on private property is their business. You and I may not approve of it, but get over it.
Speaking of "holier than thou"...
I didn't say anyone should be vicious or threatening.
Actually Schultz, "holier than thou" would be trying to impose my personal likes and dislikes on an individual property owner. Clearly, that is exactly the *opposite* of my point here.
And Mr. Brown, even if the emails and letters were cordial and polite, how would you react if you received 10 of them tomorrow from neighbors or other residents assailing your selection of a new paint color for your shutters? The letters might be polite, but I think your reaction might be a bit different.
And to Mike's point, I agree there's nothing "special" about Mt. Lebanon if every lawful action by a property owner results in a newsletter or email writing campaign. Certainly, there are private activities in our community that are prohibited by ordinance. We have decided as a community that you can't park your 35 year old RV in your front yard, we'd like people to cut their grass every so often and I shouldn't be allowed to blast my stereo at 2AM. If there is a community-wide consensus that we should require some approval or permit before removing a mature tree from private property, that's fine. Those interested in such an ordinance can work towards adding that to the regulations listed above. However, until then, publicly critiquing private property owners for the lawful decisions that they've made is not a path I'm prepared to go down.
Dave,
If I got ten letters about my house color I would repaint it in a hurry because how my neighbors feel is a lot more important to me than the color of my house. I wouldn't consider any number of polite inquiries or letters to be an assault and I certainly wouldn't blame them for sharing how they feel. It's just communicating.
Has anyone communicated with Mr. Dunlap to understand his decision?
It could be that he didn't want his business to have to rake leaves or he thinks the trees blocked the view of his business from the street, and so he did what he felt was within his rights and good for his business, with concerns such as the incremental loss of habitat and other environmental impacts largely irrelevant. If that's the case, I won't argue with him or call him names (as you seem to think I would). But I might also make my own decisions about how to manage my own property (my disposable income), and there are more restaurants to chose from than I can possibly frequent. In my personal utility function, incremental loss of habitat and similar concerns might just tip the scale when I decide where to eat.
But it might also be the case that if someone communicated with him he would have a change of heart and would make different decisions on his next projects, maybe even (gasp!) in his own perceived self interest. That would be more than enough for me to forget the whole thing. Or maybe he was busy running his various businesses and wasn't even involved in some little decision about four trees and now that he knows about it he's kind of irritated himself and is thinking about maybe using another landscape architect in the future.
Right now, I don't know and neither do you.
I took the time to lay all this out because it's an example of my philosophy. What's the answer to life? "No One Thing." The Truth is found at the intersection of all the true statements, many of which flatly contradict each other. Any one ideology, whether Galtian property rights or ecoparadise, needs have its corners rounded off by the combined gravity of all the other ideologies. Otherwise, as its linear implications propagate across an ineffably curved space it ends up doing a lot of damage.
That's why I object when you take my moderate statements and extremize them to rebut them. Apart from the fact that your characterization of my statements is inaccurate, the extremism itself is something I actively try to avoid.
Your neighbor,
Dave
I think Mt. Lebanon needs to form a comittee that deals specifically with the preservation of mature trees. There are plenty of cities who have comittees like these. Rochester, NY calls them "Legacy" trees and I think this is the perfect word to describe them. A beautiful 100 year old oak should not be allowed to be taken down without the township following a set of rules and criteria. They need to prove that the tree is unhealthy, diseased or otherwise a danger to the community before it is cut down.
Post a Comment
<< Home