2023-11-26-TREE-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Lexington Tree Commi?ee Minutes of Special Mee?ng 11.26.23 Held in the large common room Lower level, Cary Public Library 1.Mee?ng called to order at 3:15 PM 2.Present: Mark Connor, co-chair, Pat Moyer co-chair and minutes, Gerry Paul, member, Nancy Sofen, member, Todd Rhodes, Dan Miller, Alicia Morris, Ingrid Klimoﬀ, Charles Hornig, Peter Kelley. 3.Pat laid out the process she hopes to follow during the ﬁrst mee?ng of the Bylaw Enforcement Working Group (BEWG): introduc?ons, consensus on the goal, establishment of mee?ng ?me and schedule, and ground rules. 4. The major agenda item being ﬂeshing out all of our understanding of current issues with enforcement, Nancy was asked to lead point by point discussion which Pat moderated and to which Gerry contributed..  Current lookback period for developers is 36 months, but is diﬃcult to enforce unless we have data, lot by lot, about what trees came before. Par?al data exists in stump measuring, Google Earth.  Permit applica?on, use by developers. Improved use, improved correct and complete use, with resul?ng accurate $$ calcula?ons, in last month. Issues: what caused improvement--?was there a mee?ng with developers? Can IT glitch be ﬁxed? Does building commissioner seamlessly get tree warden approval? How to ensure this improvement is durable?  Current process of no?ng trees le? and trees removed during construc?on is corrupted by informal, post permi?ng informa?on, by trees being removed without any no?ﬁca?on, and by diﬃcul?es both with a clunky, tree by tree no?ﬁca?on process, and with diﬃcul?es reading the pre-and post plot plans. Could a spreadsheet help? How to ease the process for developers.  Overuse by staﬀ and developers of “hazard tree” designa?on. THIS IS FELT TO BE A PROMINENT PROBLEM. Na?onal standards for hazard designa?on should be followed, with cer?ﬁed arborist involved in each tree. Should goal be for TW to be a cer?ﬁed arborist and to be full-?me? Community feels trust broken with town on this issue.  Tree protec?on during construc?on. Bylaw states fencing per Tree manual (ie at dripline) to be up before and during. This is ﬂagrantly disregarded. How to enforce? Could enforcement be moved to building inspector? Could fencing be placed at the ini?al mee?ng with TW? Can the building inspector/ TW be authorized to use stop work order when bylaw disregarded? If dripline imprac?cal, can we insist arborist consult on trees aﬀected? Should we require developer to take out a bond on protected trees? Should guidelines for variances be se?led at a friendly mee?ng before construc?on begins? (Kelley)  Fee payment is haphazard and some?mes wrong.  Tree warden is at ?mes inexact in specifying what he means—recommended plan?ng list vs. large shade tree list, eg.  ?  Removing of town/setback trees occurs and the consequences of this viola?on o?en not clear to public. Full transparency needed. Access to Viewpoint Cloud limited. (as an aside, should be given to all members of BEWG).