HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-15-TREE-min Minutes of the Lexington Tree Committee
July 15, 2021
Held virtually via Zoom
Present: Tree Committee members: Gerry Paul (chair) and Mark Connor(co-chair),Jim Wood, Gloria
Bloom, Nancy Sofen, Pat Moyer, Marty Kvaal(scribe), Mark Sandeen (Select Board), Dave Pinsonneault
(DPW Director), Marc Valenti (DPW Manager of Operations), Chris Filadoro (Tree Warden)
Guest: Charlie Wyman (Sustainable Lexington Committee)
The meeting was called to order at 7:31am am.
ACTIONS:
- The minutes of the meeting on June 10 2021 were approved. (Sofen 1"; Bloom, 2nd)
- Motion approved that the Tree Committee recommend to the Select Board that it not approve
removal of the tree at 5 Fulton Road
- (Paul, 1't; Sofen,2nd)
TREE BYLAW ENFORCEMENT-DISCUSSION WITH DAVE PINSONNEAULT
In reponse to Tree Committee (Sofen) email of July 10, 2021 with clarifications to questions (attached).
#3 Why has the replacement inch provision of the bylaw not been enforced fully since
its adoption in 2017?
DP: Will check with Chris.
#4 Why has the protection of remaining trees not been enforced?
DP: Will check with Chris. Agrees that affected trees need to be protected. E.g.,Abernathy
Road and 8 Eliot Road. If builders don't comply,the town remedies the situation and bills the
builder for materials and labor. We need education of the builders on the bylaw requirement.
Chris has plans to meet with the builders.
Nancy Sofen volunteered to make copies of the relevant sections of the law for DPW to hand
out to builders.
#6 Will you agree to transparency and reporting of 2021 bylaw enforcement?
DP: Working now on a new spreadsheet. Will send a copy to the Committee for feedback in the
next week or two. Waiting for the State's Attorney General to approve changes made by Town
Meeting in spring 2021.
Dave agreed to respond to Nancy Sofen's email by tomorrow (July 16).
TREE WARDEN UPDATE: Marc Valenti
- Will send list of spring tree planting.
- Tree inventory to begin July 191H
- The University of Vermont is at work on the tree canopy study.
- The DPW is drafting a memo to the Select Board on the tree at 5 Fulton Road.
- The DPW is working on a proposal for replacement trees that had plaques on the Green. Will
need Select Board approval.
The tree management manual is being printed: SO color copies.
OTHER:
- 9 Fairbanks Road: clear cut for new house. Was a town tree taken down?
- The recent heavy rains (10 inches in 2 weeks) are usually good for the trees.
- Is there any legal recourse for violations on old sites? Can they be re-visited? Mitigation?
- How to penalize builders for non-compliance? Ideas: delay CO by Building Department; 3 strikes
and no more building permits; fines/day. See Wellesley's approach for trees removed without
permission.
2021 PROJECTS
a) Tree Committee Visibility—tree planting. Etc. Mark Conner reported that he looked at
the website for Des Moines, Iowa that Charlie Wyman had referenced. Mark indicated
that the program seemed to be very effective and a possible model for what could be
done in Lexington. He also noted the program from the Arbor Day Foundation could be
incorporated into the program. Small trees can be purchased for$1 to$13 through
online retailers.
b) Education/outreach projects-Charlie indicated that he's planning to call another
meeting of the LLL/Tree Committee group. Pat wants to explore starting with one
school. She will reach out to a PTA contact at Bowman.
c) Planning Board liaison—Marty will report any activity at future meeting.
d) ZBA conditions on tree removal—Mark Conner spoke with Ralph Clifford, ZBA chair, and
gave a summary of how the ZBA makes decisions. He will invite Ralph to talk to us at a
future Tree Committee meeting and then we would plan to attend a ZBA meeting to talk
about how the benefits of trees might be considered in ZBA deliberations.
e) Liaison to Permanent Building Committee—Nancy will contact Jon Himmel, PBC chair.
ADJUNCT MEMBERS—Gerry pointed out that we can easily add citizens who are interested in helping
with Tree Committee projects as adjunct members.
LEXINGTON LIVING LANDSCAPES(LLL)—Charlie will send a link to the LLL website where he created a
FAQ list about trees in Lexington.
5G AND TREES—Mark Sandeen reported on progress being made
JOHN FREY MEMORIAL—Jim reported that the Historic District Commission (which has jurisdiction over
Tower Park)will review the proposed memorial plaque. If they approve,the Monuments and Memorials
Committee will then ask for Select Board approval.
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 7.10.2021
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/maiVu/0?ik=4888d66222&view=pt&search=in...
Follow up questions, responses and clarifications
(Follow up questions in black, Dave R initial responses in blue, Nancy's clarifications in green.
---------- Forwarded message---------
From: Nancy Sofen <nsofen gmaiI.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Tree questions
To: David Pinsonneault<dpinsonneault@lexingtonma.gov>
Cc: Christopher Filadoro <cfiladoro lexingtonma.gov>, Marc Valenti <mvalenti Iexingtonma.gov>, Gerald Paul
<gerryp@bu.edu>, Mark Connor<mark@connorarchitecture.com>
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 andt that time
there were no trees being requested for removal. This property was signed off
electronically because there were no trees to be relantea Since the Bylaw's inception
sites that have no trees being removed have not been revisitea 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 COo 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 law'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 II 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. Phe byllaw as written uses a tablle
that defines "relpIlaceirneint iirnclhes" for trees 24" and Ilarger as 2x the IDlI:::3IH of the tree,
and it's these irepllaceirneint finches that Ihave to Ike mitigated. On Chris's tree byllaw
activity spreadsheet, the green sheet, and oin the pilot pllans, Chris consiisteintlly Ihas
callcullated the inuirnIbeir of inches to The iniitiigated without iregaird for whether the trees
are 24" or Ilarger. Whey Ihave the addiitiionall irepllacerrnent inches for trees 24°°II:.)IBII 11 or
greater not beein talkein iiinto accow--it?
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
2 of 3 7/26/2021,4:26 PM
Gmail-Fwd: Tree questions https://mail.google.com/maiVu/O?ik=4888d66222&view=pt&search=in...
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. ....Fhere are current building sites that Free Cornimittee mernbers have
expressed concerns about protection measures, and Clhris's iresponse has been 'I've
spolken to the builder". IIn a nurnber of cases there has been no irernedy for the
situation. Why was there not linnirnedlate compliance, and have measures described lin
120.8JE been talken?
5. How will the current Tree Bylaw be enforced? The bylaw is being enforced and will
continue to be. See 43 and I.A.,
6. Will you agree to transparency and reporting of 2021 bylaw enforcement? Please
clarify this question. Untill [he new Viewpoint support is iimpllerrnented, what
information about 2021 bylaw activity wIIIII the 11'.)IFIW provide to the Free
Committee? IFIhis could include tree irernovall applications, plot plans, green sheets,
monthly updated bylaw activity spreadsheets, tree protection penalties levied, and
application fees and mitigation payments charged.
Nancy
3 of 3 7/26/2021,4:26 PM