Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-11-TREE-rpt1August 1, 2022 Meeting Notes The meeting was called by Jim Malloy (Lexington Town Manager). Invitees were Dave Pinsonneault (DPW Director), Jill Hai (Select Board Chair), Joe Pato (Select Board liaison to the Tree Committee), Nancy Sofen (Tree Committee member) and Gerry Paul (Tree Comm ittee Chair). Jim kicked off the meeting by stating that Dave indicated he is uncomfortable having staff attend Tree Committee meetings since staff feels they are being abused by the Tree Committee during the meetings. Dave indicated they need an understanding of mutual respect and how we can make things work. He said he doesn’t think there is a respect for his him or his staff. He reviewed his qualifications and the organization and workload of the DPW. Gerry indicated before accepting some of the premises stated so far, he would like Dave to elaborate on specific ways the Tree Committee has abused the staff and showed disrespect. Dave responded that he had been told that the community: questioned “who was DPW to talk”, noted that Chris is not a certified arborist, and questioned Dave’s certified arborist status, and was told that the community valued the judgement of the Tree Committee more than the DPW. Gerry wanted to clarify that Dave was hearing second hand accounts, not from the Tree Committee directly, that there are concerns about the Forestry Dept. and asked if this is what was referred to as the Tree Committee abusing staff. Dave responded that there was a tone in the meetings that was not appreciated but the other things told to him were second hand. Gerry asked, if at any of the meeting that Dave has attended, had he seen any of the Tree Committee members act inappropriately. Dave indicated that the tone of the meetings was his concern and reiterated his concerns about the comments from the community. Jim then stated that the correspondence from the Tree Committee to Dave and/or Chris Filadoro, “has been fairly sharply worded at times”. Gerry asked Jim what communications he believed were sharply worded Jim said there he hadn’t gone through his emails but he thought they were not worded appropriately. Nancy indicated we wanted to work with the DPW and that it was incredibly frustrating that the working relationship with the DPW had broken down. She indicated that it is the Tree Committee’s responsibility to take a position on issues and it that is difficult when the DPW responds defensively or tells us we do not have a right to take a position. She indicated that the Tree Committee represents people in Town who are frustrated with what they see concerning trees. Gerry described the fact checking process the Committee goes through. Gerry asked that, just to keep the record straight, the Town Manager and/or the DPW Director find some examples in which the Tree Committee acted inappropriately. Gerry stated that respect goes two ways and that there were written commitments that were made by the DPW and that those commitments weren’t met and weren’t responded to. Nancy then asked going forward how do we find out the information we need. For example, the tree canopy survey and the tree inventory. Will the inventory be followed by an urban forest master plan? Nancy stated that, compared to what’s going on in other towns, the current situation in Lexington is frankly embarrassing. Jim then stated that doing investigations is not part of the charter of the Tree Committee and that if residents bring issues to the Tree Committee, the Tree Committee should just be alerting the Public Works Director and he will report back to the committee. Dave indicated that had a problem receiving a document from the Tree Committee with a list of issues. Jill suggested that Dave write down the process that should be followed when resident s contact the DPW. Dave said he had no problem working together to document such a process. Nancy then explained that the discussion was conflating two things: • situations in which a resident contacted the Tree Warden, did not get a response, so it came to the Tree Committee • reports by the Tree Committee on structural issues which are a combination of things that come from residents and that the Tree Committee itself has observed. An example was when the Tree Committee trying to develop amendments to the Tree Bylaw where we saw issues with how the Tree Bylaw was being implemented and brought it to Dave’s attention. Talking with Dave, we found structural issues some of which have been addressed. Dave said for those types of things, the DPW should be involved in the beginning and would be more productive than getting something later. Gerry had a different view. He described issues in the latest report that required extensive research and had to be documented with precision. He agreed that for one- off situations, referring the issue to the DPW made sense but, for structural issues with widespread inconstancies, things have to be researched and then written down. Jim then raised the issue of the Tree Committee charge. He said that carrying out investigations was not one of the Tree Committee’s responsibilities. Gerry asked Jim if the Tree Committee should not look into issues. Jim responded that as a committee our role is to turn it over to the DPW and let them report back. Gerry asked Jim if Nancy should not have created the report that she did about a year ago. Jim responded that he would have to go back and take a look at it. Jill noted that she and other Select Board members, when they get an issue, forward it on to Jim. She said it wasn’t clear to her whether the Tree Committee has the authority to do more than forward an issue to the DPW. She encouraged starting out with a clean slate and repeated the suggestion that Dave document a process for responding to resident concerns. Gerry indicated that for individual cases that is fine. He pointed out that there may be structural issues the investigation of which are triggered by an individual case and gave an example of a builder who in many cases (526 Marrett Rd, 30 Rockville, 2 Rumford) indicated he planned to remove no trees, got Chris’s concurrence, and the proceeded to almost clear cut the lot. Gerry continued that he believed writing up situations like this and the ones Nancy uncovered is appropriate for the Tree Committee an d the subject would be discussed in the next Tree Committee meeting. Nancy commented that it would be great if we could just refer issues to the DPW but the missing piece is getting a response back on what happened – things often go into a black hole. She gave the example of 19 Locke Lane (at which a builder clearly violated the Tree Bylaw). Last year, the DPW said they would look into it but the Tree Committee never heard back. She said that is what is frustrating and questioned if anything the Tree Com mittee is saying is falling on deaf ears. Dave committed to come to the September meeting of the Tree Committee with his staff and provide responses to the Tree Committee issues so we can move forward. Gerry agreed that we should move forward and questioned whether that required addressing root causes. He mentioned • the need for a full time Tree Warden and • transparency: the full implementation of the Article 33 Open Gov tree permit and reporting by tree removal companies and asked if these could be approached with a “can-do” attitude rather reasons why they can’t be done. These ideas about root causes were tabled to a different meeting. Nancy proposed the idea of a “covenant” of how the relationship will go forward where everyone agrees on certain behaviors and asked if that was something the DPW would find helpful and discuss in the September meeting. The meeting ended at 11:00.