|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2022-05-12-TREE-rpt3
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Tree Committee-TREE
>
Minutes
>
2022
>
2022-05-12-TREE-rpt3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2023 6:13:54 PM
Creation date
6/17/2022 8:20:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Year
2022
Department
Town Clerk
Keywords or Subject
Minutes - TREE - Tree Committee
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Summary of the May 17, 2022 Meeting to Discuss the Tree Committee <br />Report on <br />Tree Bylaw Enforcement <br />and <br />the Use of the OpenGov DPW Tree Permit <br /> <br />Dave’s responses to this meeting summary are in red (underlines added for black and white <br />renderings) <br /> <br />-------------------------------------------Meeting Summary---------------------------------------------- <br /> <br />Attendees: Dave Pinsonneault, Nancy Sofen, Mark Connor, Gerry Paul, Mark Sandeen <br /> <br />At the meeting, Dave’s responses to the report were as follows: <br /> <br />• Did not dispute any facts in the report. Neither agreed nor disagreed with the contents of <br />the report. <br /> <br />• Noted that the Program Improvement Request in the 2023 budget planned for 2022 ATM <br />for a Deputy Superintendent of Public Grounds was not brought forward by the Town <br />Manager/Select Board but acknowledged that lack of this resource was not the cause of <br />all the issues in our report. (In any case, even if approved, the resource would not have <br />been available until after July 1, 2022). The lack of resources have not helped in the <br />management of the bylaw and it does have an effect. <br /> <br />• DPW is working with IT to develop a process that can track and accommodate tree <br />removal applications at different stages of the project (demo, initiation of new <br />construction, later in construction process, and multiple sequential tree removal permit <br />applications). <br /> <br />• The Town is conferring with town counsel about penalties for developers who flout <br />bylaws (tree and others). <br /> <br />• The DPW is conferring with town counsel about whether the Town can recover fees and <br />mitigation payments after a permit is closed. <br />• Did not explain why, for certain sites, the Tree Warden didn't require a permit even when <br />the builder had specified that trees were to be removed. (#1) The Director was unaware of <br />this requirement and it will be implemented moving forward. <br /> <br />• Did not explain why the Tree Warden gave his approval to many demolition permits <br />before certain steps in the Tree Permit were completed (#2). This was explained in that <br />some builders remove the structures first without affecting the trees. The way the system <br />works now id that the Tree Warden has to enter all zeros in order to generate a demo <br />permit. A demo permit can be issued without trees being finalized. It was agreed that the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.