Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
March 15, 2023 <br />Draft Tree Committee Minutes for March 9, 2023. Meeting was conducted by Zoom from 7:30 AM To <br />9:30 AM. <br />Attending: Tree Committee-Gerry Paul (Chair), Jim Wood, Nancy Sofen, Barbara Tarrh, Pat Moyer, <br />Mark Connor (Co-Chair) Gloria Bloom <br />Joe Pato (Selectboard) Dave Pinsonneault (Director-DPW) <br />Lexington Community: Charlie Wyman, Martha B. Kraal, Dan Miller, Bill Singer <br />1. Jim Wood was appointed scribe and the approval of the February 9, 2023 minutes was delayed so <br />we could go directly to discuss the Tree Canopy Report. <br />2. DPW Working Group – no report; no meeting was held <br />3. Tree Canopy Report - Dave Pinsonneault provided an over view of the report. <br />Highlights: <br />• 3% canopy increase 2014 to 2021 <br />• 321 acres of canopy net gain <br />• 61% of Lexington is in a residential area <br />• There are planting opportunities in residential areas <br />• UVM suggested a reassessment every 3 to 5 years <br />• Dave commented that the next step is an urban forest management plan <br />Questions/Comments: <br />• What happened to the 2018 data point? <br />• Can we see more detailed back-up data? Dave indicated that this was all he had received. <br />• What growth should we have expected from normal healthy growth alone? <br />• Dave indicated that in the future we might want to consider tree plantings in the 2 ½ inch <br />caliper and 16-20 feet high range. <br />• Can future reports be done faster than 2 years? <br />• What did the study cost? <br />• Have neighborhoods at environmental risk been identified? Dave indicated he will work <br />Human Services and other Town Departments on that. <br />• Does UVM have information concerning Lexington’s tree canopy relative to similar <br />communities with similar built density as Lexington? <br />• Is a 3% increase good (Vermont will present their Report and cover this) <br />• Nancy indicated that from what she’s read that no amount of canopy is too much and that <br />at least 40% in any local area is needed to get such benefits as reduction in heat islands. <br />• Dan was concerned about using the report at a coarse level because, as opposed to say <br />Cambridge, a large percentage of land in Lexington is conservation land.