2023-10-19-TREE-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4. Bylaw working group presented to CLC and came away understanding a great need for public educa?on on the value of trees. In par?cular, the process of ins?tu?ng a permi?ng process for removing private property trees is now poorly understood. BWG will meet with builders and Fo? to converse and understand issues with permi?ng, should this sort of bylaw proposal survive the current process of educa?on and publicity. 5.Possible bylaw changes are now ﬁrm proposals. There will be a public forum Nov 2, 7 pm at the Community Center, with a possible virtual forum Dec. 6. The goal is public input. BWG and Zoning will meet Dec. 13. BWG awai?ng Town Counsel input, v.s. BWG mee?ng with Planning Dept. Oct. 24, and with Planning Board TBD. We discussed the idea of using community bulle?n boards (library, community center) to publicize tree value, our work, upcoming mee?ngs, etc. No conclusion drawn yet. 6. Gerry will con?nue monitoring our Town email. 7. Charlie suggested the Nov. 2 mee?ng be a posted mee?ng of the Tree Commi?ee. Joe told us that if a quorum of us is present, which the BWG endorses, it must be. Pat will post. 8. There was interest in being a new associate member by someone Pat knows, and with whom she explored. She is unable to meet at our current 7:30 AM ?me. We wondered if we could/should change our mee?ng ?me and will discuss next month. Evening ?me might be be?er eg for parents, young working people. 9. Pat indicated she had heard from the Town Manager that the working group is forming. He asked that our commi?ee representa?ves (Mark and Pat) chair the group. We were pleased to hear this and assented. Pat will let the TM know. Other members so far: Dave, Dan Miller, Tim Lee of the Design Advisory Commi?ee. TM needs to appoint someone from his side, ﬁnd another community member, and get a SB member. Joe said this would either be himself or Jill Hai. Pat suggested that we meet weekly or every other week to get the work done. Charlie suggested the chairs bring concrete proposals and agenda. S?ll unclear: will these mee?ngs be public? Will it allow invitees, such as those who have done our research over the last 3 years? 10. We were thrilled to hear from Ma? Fo?. He stated he came for two reasons: to suggest we modify the list of allowed trees to be planted to include Thuja occidentalis plicata, a NW North American na?ve which grows 60-70 feet there, less high here, and is desired by builders. He suggested we review the large shade tree list, as well as the en?re list. He wondered why we speciﬁed the invasive Norway maple as a protected tree. We relayed our concerns: the Town has so many of them that making them easy to remove would denude the canopy; and that dis?nguishing between large such maples, and clumps of their oﬀspring, in a bylaw, makes that bylaw diﬃcult to understand and enforce. We invited him to return when we re-look at the allowed trees. He informed us that there are, s?ll at this ?me of year, many available healthy bare root trees. He speciﬁed that the survival of smaller rather than larger trees is be?er percentage-wise. He es?mated that more than 80% of the Town’s yearly plan?ngs, survive. Care of planted trees, he said, “varies.” 11. Issues for future agendas: invi?ng IT re the permit process; reviewing our list of allowed trees and trees ge?ng 4X credit (large shade); how to get to understand how the tree bylaw is communicated to builders; should we take a posi?on on the proposal for new staﬀ who oversee tree ma?ers—an enforcement oﬃcer, an asst. superintendent, a full ?me tree warden?