HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-12-TREE-min Minutes for Tree Committee (TC) Meeting (via Zoom) on August 12, 2021
The meeting began at 7:35 am. Attending: Gerry Paul, Nancy Sofen, Mark Sandeen,
Mark Connor, Marc Valenti (DPW), Dave Pinsonneault (DPW), Pat Moyer, Marty
Kvaal, Gloria Bloom (acting secretary), and Charlie Wyman (observer).
Marc V. reported that the tree inventory is due to be completed by Nov-Dec. 2500 trees
have already been inventoried. There is a need to replace some trees on the Battle
Green. Proposed species will be available for the next meeting.
They are working on integrating Article 33 requirements with the Viewpoint Cloud data
base. Nancy requested that a draft of the data to be collected in Viewpoint be sent to the
TC before it is finalized. Nancy volunteered to send a summary of rules, in the new by
law update, that could be given to builders. Gerry asked if some TC members could sit
in on an IT meeting regarding implementing the Viewpoint database. Dave will look
into it. He said the TC is supposed to work thru the DPW.
Chris will meet with developers before the next TC meeting to explain bylaw
requirements and enforcement procedures. We know who the builders are through
permits and a small group does most of the building. Mark Connor said that the bylaw
should be enforced now. Marc V. said that it is being implemented now.
Dave said a new position to help Chris is in the budget. Support of the TC when the
item comes before the Select Board would be useful.
Regarding questions in Nancy's email to Dave (see attachment 4)
Chris is revisiting all sites with open permits.
Builders are being told about additional fees/credits for trees 24" or greater.
Regarding 19 Locke Lane: Chris will check each site before a CO is issued as of now.
He will check all credits/charges at that time. We can't go back to properties that
already have a CO.
For next ATM, Dave suggested that we would have to strengthen the bylaw about
protecting existing trees in order to get builders to take it seriously. Under current
bylaw, the town can hire a professional arborist, to be paid by the builder, to ensure the
health of protected trees. Marc V. noted that we need a real time solution to protect the
trees before the damage is done. The Hancock Street site is a good example of
inadequate protection. It was suggested that we notify Marc or Chris if we see any
violations. Chris will check 8 Eliot Road today. If a builder claims a tree is a hazard
and takes it down before inspection, they will have to provide documentation. A
solution is to require a picture of the tree in the Viewpoint Cloud. Marc said the new
protocol requires a site visit even if the builder says no tree will be taken down. Another
problem is builders taking down trees a year before they apply for a permit to avoid
mitigation.
Dave, Marc V., and Pat Moyer left about 8:30
Gerry noted that we need to better understand the request for additional staff for the
DPW before we indicate support to the SB.
Mark C. is following up on the tiny tree project. He hopes to meet with the Des Moines
project planner on 8/24. Everyone was enthusiastic. People are encouraged to plant
trees to commemorate life events like the birth of a baby, residents are encouraged to
have neighborhood plantings, etc. See Mark's email for details.
For the TC picture for the town annual report, Gerry will send a screen shot of a Zoom
meeting. Gerry would like TC members to review his write up for the annual report and
send comments. Deadline is 9/24. Nancy will provide a video of planting a tree for the
website.
Mark C. had no new info on coordinating with the ZBA
Nancy spoke to Jon Himmel about coordinating with the PBC. We would like to see
sustainable landscaping standards brought to town projects. There are landscaping
standards on SITES. We would like to see the gold standard, plus the use of our tree list.
The PBC might want a trial of the new standards. The Westview Cemetery project
might be a good one for such a trial.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:43
For completeness, the initial report and subsequent emails concerning tree bylaw enforcement
are attached.
1. Report to the Tree Committee on Tree Bylaw Enforcement Concerns 6.9.2021
2. DPW Director Response to Report 6.17.2021
3. Follow up questions, responses and clarifications 7.16.2021
4. Additional Follow-up Questions to DPW Director 7.23.2021
Attachment 1
Report to the Tree Committee on Tree Bylaw Enforcement Concerns
In the course of developing amendments to the Tree Bylaw for 2021 Annual Town Meeting, I
reviewed tree removals on construction sites covered by the Tree Bylaw for 2019 and 2020.
This research along with follow-up conversations with the Tree Warden Chris Filadoro brought
to light some areas of concern about current enforcement of the Tree Bylaw.
• For certain locations I found discrepancies between what is shown on plot plans and
reported in the Tree Warden's spreadsheet summarizing bylaw activity and what is
observed when looking at the sites. Appendix A documents in detail my observations
for the following 5 sites that fell under the bylaw in 2019-2020.
1. 19 Locke Lane
2. 198 Bedford Street
3. 193 Bedford Street
4. 16 Grapevine Road
5. 82 Spring Street(3 Underwood)
In four of these cases (1-4) the bylaw activity spreadsheet stated that no protected trees
were removed but it is clear that protected trees, including some large ones, were
removed. In another (5), it appears that a protected 30" oak was removed that was not
accounted for. The red circles on the plot plans were added by me, indicating the
protected trees that were removed but not reported.
The current bylaw does not mandate reporting of activities (tree removals,protection
measures for remaining trees, mitigation plantings or permit or mitigation fees paid) at
sites where the Tree Bylaw applies. It is very difficult to trace what actually occurred,
and it is possible that what appears to be lack of enforcement is simply lack of
documentation. However, if the removed trees were in fact not accounted for during
bylaw site visits, they represent underpayments of at least $4,240 in permit fees and
$46,300 to the Tree Fund. DPW Director Dave Pinsonneault has stated that the DPW
will not look into what happened at these sites.
• The Tree Warden has stated that that when a laige (24" DBH or greater) protected tree is
removed, he asks the builder to replant from the Large Shade Tree list but does not ask
for double payment to the Tree Fund if the tree is not fully mitigated by replanting as
specified in §120-8 C.
• The current Viewpoint Cloud online permitting application for tree removal permits has
no provision for the extra mitigation required for large trees that are removed, nor for the
extra credit given for replanting using large shade tree species.
• The Tree Warden does not require as a routine matter that a builder take the protection
measures described in §120-8 C and Section VIIIB in the Tree Management Manual for
trees left on the site. He has stated that he speaks to builders if there is a complaint that
trees are being harmed; he has discretion over whether remedial or punitive action is
taken if the builder still does not comply with the bylaw. Photos taken this spring of
some sites where setback trees are not being properly protected are shown in Appendix
B.
1
• In a prior Tree Committee meeting we discussed the apparent shortfall of tree removal
permit fees collected from 2017-2020, when the inches of protected trees removed
reported by the Tree Warden was compared to the amounts reported received by the
Finance Office. DPW Director Pinsonneault worked with the Finance Office to
investigate and found that a single check or credit card deposit to the Town's general
funds may be made in payment of multiple fees by a builder, without necessarily
itemizing those payments. He stated that he is confident that fees are being collected and
acknowledges that better tracking may be a reasonable goal in the future.
Implementation of the amendments to the Tree Bylaw passed at spring 2021 Annual Town
Meeting should help address some of the issues noted here. The Tree Committee expects to
work with the DPW and the IT Department to ensure that the Viewpoint Cloud permit
application captures both the replacement inch calculation for large trees and the large shade tree
planting credit. The post-construction spreadsheet to be provided by builders that lists all
removed and newly planted trees will facilitate uniform compliance with the bylaw and more
accurate and accessible records of bylaw activity. Currently I am not confident that trees
removed under the bylaw are adequately mitigated, and I am quite sure that trees remaining on
the site are often not adequately protected from damage.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sofen
June 9, 2021
2
APPENDIX A: BYLAW ACTIVITY DISCREPANCIES
1: 19 Locke Lane (by Westview Homes)
Plot plan submitted February 2019 shows no trees marked
for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019 summary
spreadsheet states no trees were removed at this address.
i
The property sold in December 2019 for$2.5M.
r
�� �;
1
r
fi
de.
LCM. 4»S
,��.
• � Lo Ir"*44 I �4
L,x w 18 i,;. d•
a/J � muimm mw ar.a
jy' w m
0 �r< km�'�
Gk PJwmrcna o �,,.'e
mm
�" nwm m,r,MAN,ar.�
IVWtkr Am'M'4 m4'N
PNDMW 110rar.w rcb W. W's rr, it e", m o w
ao mdnvamwumwr mu m^a
m.wmmr W 140 M
m:Fsr.
I
61
W'" '
-14
,d" I K ANP,'
i"
1
HEREBY '"OCF"'M' 1HAT %�.&:. !L CCC V ,.�.a o mma we mm mk"IMIX mom,x
ma AMU 10
DYED AS SHOW
a �mPROPOSED PLOT PLAN
LOCKE LANE
IMaNGIN
TO
(WODLCOUNM
vCII 4CD
✓
,.4, A
A 2/7/2019
l ; r rads ✓ w*m P .,
11": WO 120ft
7// ROBER SURVEY
0 oohs �� 2Aa mroI� iii`.
` .adrj�l�ll�im, wIII FARUNOTOK, MA 02476
LAN MAY HAVE BUN N,,..7C"`Ri'D IT'" l au
No trees were marked as hazards, and it appears that the
following protected trees were removed: 1@30" (= 60
replacement inches), 1@22", 3@18", 1@14", 2@12",
1@10", 1@8", 5@6" for a total of 222".
Google street view shows that 9 new trees were planted.
One is a spruce, four are Callery Pear, one is a small
ornamental Japanese Maple and the others are blocked
from view by a fence. Assuming those 3 are large shade
tree species, that totals 39 inches of mitigation planting.
Proper mitigation would have required further payment of
at least $18,300 to the Tree Fund and there should have
been application fees of$1,920 paid to the town.
3
2: 198 Bedford Street (by Westview Homes)
,o o
Plot plan submitted February 2019 shows no trees marked
for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019-2020 summary
spreadsheet states no trees were removed at this address.
The property sold in July 2020 for $1.9M.
�V
1 41
LOT
N' 0
4,
� .
o
� . P.
1bAA'6 LOf 4 �
D Asr
WWW A kwyuAr D44"
� 9
PWAM Eo-wrom Homo
ASSL"Oft MAP 85 PARCEL 170
I d EfEMW SSkTSET THAT THE B,tlklSkkP}C#IS
FLOOD,MAP r1OT 1C 4403 F-6/4/2WO,O,ZOW x
4,O41ATESk AS SHOWN,
PROPOSED PLOT PLAN �
m A 6e5� #198 BEDFORD STREET
IN
ASTON, M.
� P
h ^ (MIDDLESEX COL44TM)
f
SCALE 1 30' DAM 12/14/2018
� r rvuro 9r ra
ROSER SURVEY
1, SCOTT B. PL D'TE 1072A M ASSAC'Hk SMS AVENUE
ARUNGTON, MA 02476
THIS PLAN MAY HAVE.'EcBEENAsALTEREDsF attyD "�A1a s.,3.3,
THE, &GNArURE IS NOT SIGNED €N BUX 1104PP:r.DC,
No trees were marked as hazards, and the following
protected trees were removed: 1@40"(80
replacement inches), 3@24"(48 replacement inches
each), 1@14" for a total of 238 replacement inches.
Three trees from the large shade tree list were
planted,for 18" of mitigation planting, leaving
A $22,000 owed to the Tree Fund in mitigation
payment and $1,260 owed to the town in permit
1
application fees.
The remaining 24" oak has since been removed, and
in spring 2021 the 40" oak is exhibiting some decline.
Were protection measures taken?
4
3: 193 Bedford Street (Lexington Development Associates LLC)
Plot plan submitted May 2019 shows no trees marked
for removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019-2020 "-
summary spreadsheet states no trees were removed at -
this address. The home was listed for sale in November
1J,274 SF
2020 for $1.45M.
r rima aw .......� .........._
l � JVAfW tlV MMAVMI-
No trees were marked as hazards, and the lot was
cleared with the following protected trees removed: a
1@24"(48 re lacement inches 1@21". 1@14"; 1@10"Y
�
1@7" for a total of 100 replacement inches. PROPOSED
2-6 AMARd.Y" "
, PSG'CVP93 I t�caaras
There appear to be several new trees planted, including > ,., m
,
large shade tree species. It is not clear whether
mitigation was complete through replanting. PermitF.,
application fees owed to the town would be $760. ° �
v "
f
a
444yyy <,
pre s UAM 9 ..< N
ax •. ;�5',Qh6.k' x ^,• SRA4'YM C.N7"E '"".. am^wu
g r
RF DFORD STREET
u
r,
I�
I
1
r o�
ti
5
w�auw%w;�w�auwrc �i�o„'�
M Y
4: 16 Grapevine Avenue (by Adish Properties LLC)
Plot plan submitted in 2019 shows no trees marked for
removal, and the Tree Warden's 2019-2020 summary
spreadsheet states no trees were removed at this address.
The property sold in January 2021 for $1.5M.
�r No trees were marked as hazards, and it appears that 2 or 3
protected trees (whose sizes are not given on the plot plan)
were removed.
Y Y
.s°" N JLNM
r TM +nue wc:
;w � . ➢ � j].y ° ������ ,.,.� `,r 'gfi c tmanm.,rum..awnn'o::
I !h
a
v
11 it rr'p
3a'e�Y�s .�ar.rte
,zru 1 xwhNY
as
i
M Y "
1 1
Y '
y
,. L✓YI W
fly
6
5: 82 Spring Street (3 Underwood) (by Seaver Properties LLC)
The builder of this house, which sold for$2.2M in
September 2020, did a very nice job of preserving several
err
large shade trees. Notations on the June 2019 plot plan
and in the Tree Warden's summary spreadsheet state that
� 50" of protected trees were removed. One dead tree was
marked on the plot plan.
A 30" oak (60 replacement inches) marked TBR on the
plot plan was in fact removed. It was not labeled a
hazard, nor was it included in the total inches to be
mitigated. Removal of this protected tree would have
required $300 in application fees and mitigation of 60" by
replanting or payment to the Tree Fund of$6,000.
19
I
a / PR'OPOSCD HOUSE
r
<ur ! �,mvmosa�uv.__..
�i wa
MWOSM
OR
dNVW45WG4k" '��
°vu
kM'
4 �r
E77 avr�a
UNDERWWOOD ROAD
SEC
y
�
f �
/i kyr wjn�y A^�J�YNJ7JJ""'xy�rnvflxy uvr is ngavrry �^i PhY i� / � U / �
�a
i
11
I
APPENDIX B: TREES IN SETBACK LACKING PROTECTION
FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION
8 Eliot Road
r
„
i
Y
� d
e'
f
,
i�m, WWI,ro
r.
52 Hancock Street
" t
� u
I �
l
d ^�.
t Y wh
21 Wheeler Road
a 8
Attachment 2
Gmail-tree questions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=4888d66222&view�pt&search=all...
MGmal I Gerry Paul <gerrypaul01@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
tree questions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Pinsonneault<dpinsonneault@lexingtonma.gov> Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:22 PM
To: Nancy Sofen <nsofen@gmail.com>
Cc: Gerald Paul <gerrypaul01 @gmail.com>, Marc Valenti <mvalenti@lexingtonma.gov>, Christopher Filadoro
<cfiladoro@lexingtonma.gov>
Dear Nancy,
Here are the responses that we have.
16 Grapevine: The plot plan identifies three locations without DBH, these were large shrubs that were in the setback
with nothing larger than 6" removed.
198 Bedford Street: The builder claims that there were a few trees that were in very poor condition that he removed.
Chris did not have a chance to deem them hazards or not hazards and is following up with the builder with regards to
next steps.
193-195 Bedford Street: This project has not been closed out yet. There was an additional site visit that was done
after the first one that approved the removal of a dead and hazardous tree that was not noted on the plot plan. Chris
is working with the builder on next steps.
3 Underwood Ave: This property was originally submitted as a Spring Street address and the side setback was only
15' and did not capture the large oak tree at that time. Chris has spoken with the builder and they are aware that they
will need to pay additional fees for both the removal and mitigation of this tree.
19 Locke Lane: The Builder noted that there were no trees being removed at the time of demo and says that the
owner wanted them removed after the house was removed and the builder did not check back in with the Town.
When there are no trees agreed to for removal we do not do a follow up site visit as there is no planting or mitigation
requirements. Chris has reached out to the builder and they are aware that they will need to pay additional fees for
both the removal and mitigation of the trees.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you.
David
1 of 2 7/18/2021, 11:15 AM
Gmail-tree questions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=4888d66222&view�pt&search=all...
i9«um 1. 9iwawwaua, esgm, usq
DPW Director
Lexington DPW
Samuel Hadley Public Services Building
201 Bedford Street
Lexington, MA 02420
Ph: 781-274-8314
Fax: 781-274-8392
9 ,�
, '�'
' °1.h
CXREDIT E
AGENCY
G , aR
2 of 2 7/18/2021, 11:15 AM
Attachment 3
Gmail-Fwd: Tree questions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=4888d66222&view=pt&search=dra...
Follow up questions, responses and clarifications
(Follow up questions in black, Dave R initial responses in blue, Nancy's clarifications in green, Dave's
responses to clarifications in red).
From: David Pinsonneault<dpinsonneault@lexingtonma.gov>
Date: Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: Tree questions
To: Nancy Sofen <nsofen gmail.com>
Cc: Marc Valenti <mvalenti c@lexingtonma.gov>, Christopher Filadoro <cfiladoro d7lexingtonma.gov>
Response are below in red.
From: Nancy Sofen [mailto:nsofen gmaii.com]
Sent:Saturday,July 10, 202110:49 AM
To: David Pinsonneault<dpinsonneault@lexingtonrna. ov>
Cc: Christopher Filadoro<cfilad oro@lexin tonrna.gov>; Marc Valenti <mvalenti lexingtonma.gov>; Gerald
Paul <gerryp bu.edu>; Mark Connor<mark r connorarchitecture.com>
Subject: Re:Tree questions
Hi Dave,
My clarifications are in green. We would appreciate your responses by Wednesday morning so that we can discuss
this at Thursday's Tree Committee meeting.
Responses to your questions:
1. Please clarify the sequence of events relative to the trees in question at 198 Bedford Street. The site
was inspected before the permit was issued and at that time there were no trees being requested for
removal. This property was signed off electronically because there were no trees to be replanted. Since
the Bylaw's inception sites that have no trees being removed have not been revisited. Given that there
was an issue here and in order to not have this issue reoccur Chris will be revisiting all sites prior to a CO
to ensure proper adherence to the Bylaw.
2. Was the final sign off prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for 19 Locke Lane and 198
Bedford Street performed by the Tree Warden?These properties were signed off on by the tree warden
and were not given a physical final inspection because there were no trees to be replanted. Since the
Bylaw's inception sites that have no trees being removed have not been revisited. Given that there was an
issue here and in order to not have this issue reoccur Chris will be revisiting all sites prior to a CO to
ensure proper adherence to the Bylaw.
3. Why has the replacement inch provision of the bylaw not been enforced fully since its adoption in
2017? Please clarify this question. ..i..he Ibylaw as written uses a table t1hat defines"replacement inclines"for
trees 24" and larger as 2.x the ID11311 I of the tree, and iit"s these re1n11aceirnent inches that have to The rnitigated„
On Chris's tree lbylaw activity s1preadshe t, the green sheet, and on the plot plans, Chris consistently has
calculated the inumber of inches to loe irniitiigated witlhoi,..ut regard for whether the tr(.-a,es are 24.°" or larger. Why
lhave the additional replacement inches for trees 24"ID11311 I or greater not 11-.) en taken into account? Chris
has been using the replacement inches without doubling based on the commitment of the builder to replant
from the approved list which gives credits for doing so. This made it easier to implement and track but 1
2 of 3 7/19/2021, 11:51 AM
Gmail-Fwd: Tree questions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O?ik-4888d66222&view=pt&search=dra...
have instructed Chris that any future sites will be calculated as per the bylaw and credits given upon
completion.
4. Why has the protection of remaining trees not been enforced?When we see or have been made
aware of an issue then we use the Tree Bylaw language to enforce this, since the bylaw has begun we
have had very few issues reported about protection. Moving forward we will ensure trees in construction
areas will have proper tree protection. rhero are cuirreint Ibuilldiing sites that 11ree Cornrnill,Il.ee members have
expressed concerns aboiut Iprote,ction measures, and Chris's res1ponse has IDen "I've slooken to the
builder".. In a nuinnIaer of cases there, has been ino irernnedy for the situation. Why was there inot irnmedial:e
cornpliance, and have imeasn.are s described in 120.8.11::.::: been talken? I have instructed Chris to ensure he
goes over the protection requirement with the builders and follow-up to make sure it is installed. The
handout you will be sending us will be very helpful. Chris is out next week and will address these sites
beginning on July 26th requiring the proper protection be put in place. Marc is also out the first part of next
week and he will check the sites as well.
5. How will the current Tree Bylaw be enforced? The bylaw is being enforced and will continue to
be. See 93 and 44.
6. Will you agree to transparency and reporting of 2021 bylaw enforcement? Please clarify this
question. Untill the inew VieVVj',)oint suj,.)j,,)oiI,is irnplernented, what information about 2021 loylaw actiivity willll
theIl:: IFIVV provide to the 11 iree Committee? rhis coulld include tree removal apl'Nications, plot plans, green
sheets, monthly updated bylaw acll.iviity sjpreadsheell,s, tree protection penalties levied, and application fees
and mitigation payments charged.. As we spoke yesterday staff will be developing a spreadsheet to track
information related to the bylaw. This will be done in the next week or two and sent to the Tree Committee
for review and edits. Once agreed to we will implement that to gather the information.
3 of 3 7/19/2021, 11:51 AM
Attachment 4
Gmail-Followup tree bylaw questions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=4888d66222&view=pt&search=all...
MGmal I Gerry Paul <gerrypau101@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Followup tree bylaw questions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Sofen <nsofen@gmail.com> Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:43 AM
To: David Pinsonneault<dpinsonneault@lexingtonma.gov>, Marc Valenti <mvalenti@lexingtonma.gov>, Chris Filadoro
<Cfiladoro@lexingtonma.gov>
Cc: Gerald Paul <gerrypaul01 @gmail.com>, Mark Connor<mark@connorarchitecture.com>
Dear Dave,
The Tree Committee is pleased by the progress that we see in clarifying procedures used in administering the Tree
Bylaw. We expect that the enforcement provisions related to large trees and to protection for remaining trees will
apply to all currently open building permits, not just new permits going forward. Is this your plan?
We would like some clarification of your statement that when trees 24" or larger were removed "Chris has been using
the replacement inches without doubling based on the commitment of the builder to replant from the approved list
which gives credits for doing so." From 2019 to the present, has Chris confirmed that all inches of these large trees
were mitigated by sufficient replanting from the large shade tree list? In cases where there was not sufficient
replanting, did Chris take the requirement that unplanted inches of these large trees be doubled into account when
calculating the mitigation payments owed to the Tree Fund?
We are hopeful that requiring protection measures for remaining trees from the beginning will go smoothly; when it
doesn't, we encourage Chris to act quickly with measures that will both protect the trees and communicate to builders
that the town takes this very seriously. The threat of greater costs, or of having a CO held up until an arborist is hired
to assess and/or treat any harm to a tree, could be a powerful incentive to comply. Are there plans to take these steps
if necessary?
Please have Chris send an up-to-date spreadsheet of bylaw activity, including updates to those from 2019 and 2020
that have changed. The last such spreadsheet that we received went through December 2020.
Last, we request a review of all bylaw sites whose permits were open during any part of 2021 for compliance with the
bylaw. Such review is particularly important for those sites on which the builder initially claimed no trees were to be
removed and so therefore may not have been revisited before the CO was issued, and for sites where large trees
were removed.
A reply by Friday, July 30 would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Nancy Sofen
for the Lexington Tree Committee
1 of 1 9/9/2021,4:57 PM