Trees & vegetation rules

“Can that tree come down?” is the most common question on a wooded common parcel. The answer always runs through the same three layers: the recorded covenant, the wetland overlay, and Massachusetts tree law. This page walks all three.

Layer 1 — the covenant: a prohibition with narrow exceptions

The controlling rule is §2.06 of the recorded Declaration of Covenants — read it in the instrument itself (p. 5):

“No trees, grasses or other vegetation shall be cut, removed, or otherwise destroyed, except as may be reasonably necessary to maintain the wooded areas of the Open Space in accordance with good woodland management practices.”

What “good woodland management” expressly permits (to be done at least annually, disturbing the area “to the minimum extent possible”):

• removing hazardous, diseased, insect- or fire-damaged trees;
• removing dead trees;
• removing invasive and non-native species (and interplanting natives);
• clearing brush and de-minimis pruning.

What it does not permit: clearing healthy trees for views, light, or peace of mind, or any wholesale cutting. And because §2.06 lives in the City-enforced Declaration, it is effectively permanent — the owners can’t vote it away, and the trust can’t be amended around a Planning Board condition without the City’s written consent (Trust, p. 20).

Layer 2 — the wetland overlay

Much of the common woodland sits inside the 100-foot Conservation Commission buffer along the wetland corridor — the surveyed line runs through the open-space strip behind the upper cul-de-sac (recorded plan, Sheet 8). Inside that band, cutting needs Commission review (a Request for Determination of Applicability or a Notice of Intent) on top of the covenant rule. That process genuinely works — a homeowner on the lane took a terraced-yard project through NOI → Order of Conditions → Certificate of Compliance in 2021–22 (the worked example). Unpermitted cutting there is an independent violation of the Wetlands Protection Act and Beverly’s ordinance — fines can reach $25,000 with restoration orders (M.G.L. c.131 §40; Beverly ordinance ch. 287, which the City adopted to protect more than the state act does, and its Wetlands Protection Regulations).

The Commission actively watches this corridor. In 2024 its agent spotted unpermitted stone walls and a patio on the common parcel from the public trail, and the resulting Enforcement Order was resolved only with standing conditions against further alteration of jurisdictional areas (details on the common-land page). Where the buffer actually falls, and the stricter 50-foot and 25-foot bands inside it, are mapped on Wetlands & buffers.

Where the wetlands sit relative to the common parcel: the parcel in blue wraps the sixteen lots; the mapped wetland overlaps its southwestern lobe by Kelleher Pond, and the intermittent-stream corridor runs along the eastern boundary. Screening layers approximate — the authoritative line is the surveyed delineation on Plan Book 446/73, Sheet 8.
Source: Beverly MapGeo, the City’s public parcel viewer, wetlands layer on.

Layer 3 — Massachusetts tree law

Two Supreme Judicial Court cases frame a landowner’s tree liability:

• The Massachusetts Rule — a landowner is not liable for damage done by a healthy tree, even one a neighbor considers threatening (Shiel v. Rowell, 480 Mass. 106 (2018)).
• The hazard exception — liability attaches when the owner knew or should have known a tree was defective and failed to act (Kurtigian v. Worcester, 348 Mass. 284 (1965)).

The practical consequence: what matters legally is documented notice of a defect. A written assessment by a qualified arborist both creates that record and separates genuinely hazardous trees from healthy or seasonally stressed ones. A removal contractor’s estimate is a price quote, not a hazard diagnosis.

Putting the layers together

Before any tree on the common land comes down, three questions have to clear:

1. Does §2.06 allow it? Is the tree actually dead, hazardous, diseased, or invasive — supported by a qualified assessment, not appearance?
2. Is it in the buffer? If it stands within 100 feet of the wetland line, the Conservation Commission reviews first. (The Conservation Administrator listed on the City’s Conservation Commission page holds the subdivision’s wetlands file.)
3. Who decides? The common land is the association’s, so removal on it is the board’s call under the trust’s maintenance duties — an individual owner cutting common-land trees on their own initiative violates the covenant regardless of the tree’s condition.

On individual lots, the Restrictive Covenants’ general upkeep rule applies (grass trimmed, vegetation pruned — ¶3K), and the wetland buffer extends onto the rear of several lots — see Wetlands & buffers for which recorded lots the 2014 Order lists as containing resource areas.

The layers in action — the nine pines (2026)

In the summer of 2026 all three layers ran end-to-end on the common parcel itself, and the public record shows each one clearing in order.

The association filed a Request for Determination of Applicability to remove nine pine trees at 100 Pond View Lane, heard by the Conservation Commission on July 28, 2026 (the agenda, item 6(a)). Per the minutes of the hearing:

1. The covenant question was answered with condition, not appearance. A trustee presented for the association that the nine trees stand dead in one area of the site and that an arborist had reviewed them and determined they were dead — the dead-tree exception §2.06 actually grants. The Conservation Agent then told the Commission he had visited the site himself and believes the trees are dead — an independent check on the record.
2. The buffer question went to the Commission first, and the lighter path sufficed. The Commission issued a Negative 3 Determination of Applicability, with conditions, on a 4-0 roll call. “Negative” is the good outcome, not a denial: a Negative 3 is the determination that the work sits in the Commission’s reviewed band but, as described — all removal work staged from the paved surface of the cul-de-sac — will not alter the protected areas themselves, so no full Notice of Intent is required. The conditions carry the substance: nine replacement trees, all white pines, the species to be finalized with Commission staff, and photo documentation submitted at the end of a two-year survival period.
3. The decision was the association’s act. The applicant of record is the association and its board presented the request — common-land removal done as the covenant contemplates it, not by an owner with a saw.

The condition is the part worth remembering after the stumps are gone: under a determination like this, a removal is not truly closed when the trees come down, but when the replacement plantings have survived their monitoring period and the photographs prove it. A determination of applicability also has a shelf life — the state’s determination form (WPA Form 2) is valid for three years from issuance — so work approved this way cannot simply wait indefinitely.