The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-02-10-TREE-min RECEIVED 2022 21 Mar,4��00 pirn Minutes for virtual Tree Committee (TC) meeting, February 10, 2022 roWN CLERK UEMNG'T NAA The meeting began at 7:33 am. Attendees were: Gerry Paul, Gloria Bloom (scribe), Nancy Sofen, Martha Kvaal, Marc Connor, Jim Wood, Pat Moyer and Mark Sandeen. Also present were Marc Valenti, Marcia Gens, Charley Wyman, Barbara Tarrh, Dan Miller, and Rick Reibstein. The minutes of the January 13 meeting were approved. Updates from Marc Valenti: UVM canopy study is not ready yet. They are waiting for 2021 lidar. The tree inventory is almost ready to go online. Battle Green tree selection will go before SB on Feb. 28. Jim Wood reported that 4 to 6 sites on the Green need trees. They are looking for fall color. Choice of species will be sent to TC before Feb. 28. The TC needs a new member to replace Marty Kvaal. There are 2 applicants. We discussed adding an associate member, which would be up to the SB. Useful knowledge in a new member might include experience in arboriculture, legal experience, knowledge of how the town operates, a passion for trees. Article 33 subcommittee will meet 2/14 with IT. The TC voted unanimously to approve the subcommittee report on implementation (attached). Marty Kvaal attended a Planning Board meeting where the subject of Norway maples came up. They are invasive but not on lawns where mowing keeps the seedlings down. Marty will draft a policy statement from the TC to the PB, about the Norway Maple. Tree removal by Eversource at Bowman School. TC believes the trees were on town property and Eversource violated the bylaw. The DPF (which is in charge of school grounds) asked them to remove vines and brush, not trees. Chap. 87 requires advance notice about tree removal. We should follow Chap 87 and the bylaw. They should mitigate or pay the fee. It was generally agreed that we need to investigate further, get more facts, understand what went wrong, and recommend practices that would prevent it from happening again. After a long discussion of alternatives, we agreed that Gerry Paul would ask Jim Molloy to enforce the bylaw and that Gerry will share his response with us. There was an informal discussion of how to preserve large trees and how to spend tree fund money most effectively. Among the ideas suggested were: Should large shade trees be considered public property or a public good? How can we raise public awareness of the value of trees? Should we seek professional advice on bylaws, a public awareness campaign, the use of social media or other methods of public outreach? Can we connect loss of property value to canopy destruction? Should we have a list of recommended companies that try to save trees (for example Savatree, Boston Tree Preservation, Another Level Landscaping)? Should the TC work with other groups that share our interest in tree preservation, such as Lexington Living Landscapes? Would requiring a permit to remove a large shade tree help increase awareness of their value? Gerry will outline possible ideas for using tree fund money for purposes other than planting trees. A special meeting on this topic will be at 8 am on Feb 24. Meeting adjourned at 9:31 Attached: Review of New Tree Permit Viewpoint Implementation Review of New Tree Permit Viewpoint Implementation Summary At the Lexington Tree Committee meeting of January 13, the Committee reviewed the new implementation of the Viewpoint Tree Permit. Primarily because the implementation does not support the collection of information about individual trees in machine readable, digital format, we took the position that the current on-line implementation of Article 33 passed at Annual Town Meeting 2021 does not reflect the intent of the article and the will of Town meeting. Background/Motivation In the summer/fall of 2020, a joint working group of Tree Committee and Sustainable Lexington members developed proposals for articles for 2021 Annual Town Meeting. One of these proposed articles was motivated by the recognition that it was difficult to collect detailed information about trees removed under the Lexington Tree Bylaw as well as about trees remaining on the site. The only method of obtaining this information was to review each plot plan— a time consuming and error prone process. We realized that a solution to the problem was to require applicants for a demolition or building permit to input itemized information about trees on the property into the Viewpoint Permit system. We also recognized that as with building permits, before a certificate of occupancy should be issued, a second set of information (a"post-build survey") should be input by the applicant that would reflect what actions were actually taken on the property—trees removed and trees planted as mitigation. The post-build survey is important because it is often the case that tree removal/replanting plans change as a project progress. In the course of developing our article we recognized these side benefits to the proposed approach: • Accuracy- Less chance for error in determining fee and mitigation requirements. Instead of calculating these based on examination of the plot plan, this information would be captured in digital format and payments/replanting would be calculated automatically—an improvement over the error prone method of the Tree Warden doing this in the field. • Provision of an audit trail—Citizens often raise questions about"what happened" at a construction site in their neighborhood. The proposed solution would allow them to view this information easily on-line and remove their doubts without burdening the Tree Warden or Tree Committee members with their questions. • Applicant accountability—the applicant would be accountable for information entered as is the case for other components of building permits (plot plans, construction plans, etc.) Thus, any discrepancies cannot later be attributed to the Tree Warden. With all of this in mind, after discussion with DPW personnel, Select Board members and others, we proposed Article 33 in 2021 Town meeting. It was passed by a vote of 160 yes, 16 no, 9 abstain. Article 33 Article 33 was presented at 2021 Annual Town meeting on April 14, 2021. The Select Board unanimously supported the article, including in their position: "This information would all be collected in the town's online permitting system, which is already a required element of the application process". The article, motion, presentation, and video are available at haps://www.le)(i..................�1/w w�l e)(.�tn g mg2 /t ./...... e.e...ti n. 3ages/202i_ nnual town meeting articles re..o is an citions For ease of reference, we highlight here the following from the presentation: 0 Type of Information Needed • Itemized • In machine readable form • Pre and post tree removal All of this can be achieved using the Town's Gtine permit system ( View Point ) Annual Town Meeting 2021 5 0 Sample Online Tree Data Sheet • Embedded into online permit application • Simply formatted Spreadsheet • Number Keyed to Site Survey • Data Inputs are digital sortable and accessible Annual Town Meeting 2021 6 In addition, as the implementation began, we also made clear our expectations for itemized input with the following sample spreadsheet which was provided to the DPW. (For those unable to open the spreadsheet, a screen shot is in the Appendix.) SAMPLE BYLAW SPREADSHEET.xlsx Double Click to open Implementation Deficiencies We identified the following issues with the new implementation: • The major deficiency is the lack of support for collecting digital, machine-readable information about individual trees. Instead,the approach seems to have been to require additional information to be added to the plot plan from which the extraction of data is difficult and error prone. The ability to collect information in digital, machine-readable form was the motivating force for Article 33 —the reason for its existence. • The applicant is not required to input "post-build" information. • The species of replanted trees is not input.This is required to properly determine credit if large shade trees are planted. • The total DBH of trees with diameters equal or greater than 24" and the impact on mitigation required is not shown explicitly. If machine-readable information was collected, this could be done automati- cally. Without this information, it must be done manually by the Tree Warden. • Required fees and mitigation are not calculated automatically from base information about the trees but must be done manually by the Tree Warden. • Some terminology is imprecise (e.g., "recommended trees" vs "Recommended Large Shade Trees list of the Lexington Tree Manual"). Appendix KEY: Information to be input by applicant,subject to confirmation by Tree Warden. Dropdown menus are provided for some categories. Calculations based on information given PROTECTED TREE INVENTORY Retained and Special Replacement Inches Site Key Location DBH(inch) Tree Species Protected(x) Removed(x) HAZARD? conditions? Removed Trees Comments A setback 26 Maple x NO yes 26 Impacts sewer line B setback 21 Maple x N0 no 0 C setback 16 Pine x YES no 0 D setback 28 Oak x NO no 112 E interior 15 Oak x NO no 0 E interior 10 Pine x N0 no 0 G setback 18 Oak x N0 no 0 0 0 TOTAL TO BE MITIGATED 138 PROPOSED TREE PLANTING Inches Caliper On Large Shade Replacement mitigation Quantitiy Height(ft) (inch) Tree Species Tree Species list? factor credited 2 3 Oak Yes 4 24 1 4 Sweetgum yes 4 16 3 6 White Spruce yes 4 36 1 3 Redbud no 1 3 INCHES REPLANTED 79 PAYMENT TO TREE FUND Per inch Inches Inches Inches to be payment to removed minus Replanted equals mitigated times Tree Fund equals Payment to Tree Fund 138 79 59 $ 200 $ 11,800