2023-08-10-TREE-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

developers’ sites. There will be a meeting of the Select Board on the evening of August 21, 2023, at which the appointment of such a group will be discussed. We are encouraged to attend. 7. Select Board Meeting. Mark Connor reviewed that the official carriers of our requests regarding trees to this meeting will be himself, Gerry Paul, and Nancy Sofen. They will meet before 8.16.23 to organize their points and requests. 8. Tree Bylaw Revision Group. The group presented its framework for amendments to the Tree Bylaw. The Committee expressed that it was important to take a position to explicitly discourage clear-cutting, and two new proposals were added: the prohibition on removal of significant trees in the front 20’ of any property, and on construction sites a certain percentage of significant trees in the setbacks must be retained. The amended framework is attached, and the committee supported pursuing these changes to the bylaw by a vote of 5-0, in the priority order listed. The next working group meeting will focus on strategy for presenting the framework. 9. Canopy Survey. The Committee discussed and voted to forward to Dave Pinsonneault the following questions to include in the RFP to UVM for further analysis of the canopy data that they collected. These are, in priority order: a) A canopy analysis of a corridor 90’ wide along all streets (which encompasses a 30' setback on either side of a street.) b) Add a street map overlay of the canopy change maps. c) We note that in their canopy reports, other cities and towns showed data represented by smaller hexagons than Lexington's. [Lexington 20 hectares (49.5 acres), Brookline 25 acres, Cambridge 10 acres, Wellesley 2 acres]. All but Wellesley were done by UVM. Does this mean that the data used for the other municipalities was collected or analyzed on a finer scale? Or was it just reported on a finer scale? We would like to see our maps broken down into smaller hexagons and are interested to learn whether there is there a sweet spot for cost vs. utility when deciding the size of the hexagon used. d) If Lexington supplied UVM with a list of properties that underwent (began and completed) development or redevelopment between 2015 and mid -2021, could they evaluate the canopy changes before and after development for a random subset of those lots? UVM did this for Seattle, using Google Earth imagery to assess 80 parcels. e) Our report does not distinguish between conservation land and private land when it talks about forested areas (p. 17). We'd like further breakdown of canopy on conservation land. It would also be helpful to distinguish between open space that may be planted to increase canopy cover, and those such as recreation fields and golf courses that cannot. 10. Liaison Reports. The Planning Board passed Site Plan Review regulations that include some good tree protections. Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 am.