Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-12-TREE-minLexington Tree Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:30 am Via ZOOM Present: Gerry Paul (Co-chair), Mark Connor (co-chair), Gloria Bloom, Jim Wood, Nancy Sofen, Mark Sandeen. Guests: Marty Kvaal, Barbara Tarrh, Charlie Wyman, Dan Miller Absent: Pat Moyer, DPW staff 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:34 am. Nancy Sofen appointed scribe. 2. Minutes of the March 3 and April 14 meetings were approved (5-0). 3. As no DPW staff were present, there were no updates on tree inventory, tree canopy assessment, tree bylaw activity, removal of public shade tree at 149 Adams Street, planting on Battle Green or commemorative tree program. 4. The tree hearing for the Lincoln Street sidewalk project has not yet been scheduled. 5. Planning for Earth Day in May: 11-3 Sat May 14 in front of Visitors Center. Gerry and Gloria will attend; Barbara to drop off table and bring pinecones, acorns and hand lenses and Gerry to bring printed materials. 6. There is good progress with Tim Goncalves of the IT department on Tre e Bylaw implementation. 7. Gerry presented a report on Tree Bylaw enforcement problems. This was approved (5-0) as a draft, with Gerry to ask for a meeting with the DPW director to discuss whether there is anything in the report that is not factual. Any commitments made by the DPW will be appended to the report which will then be brought to the Select Board Chair. See Appendix to these minutes for the draft report. A suggestion was made to make such a report on bylaw compliance an annual process. 8. We would like to see a credible system for tracking compliance with Chapter 87 regarding removal of street trees. 9. A subcommittee of Gerry, Barbara, Nancy and Dan will work on bylaw changes for future consideration by Town Meeting. A motion was approved (5 -0) to request of the Town Manager that this group have access to Town Counsel for the purpose of drafting warrant articles for future Town Meetings. 10. Gerry presented a framework for the formation of an active Friends of Trees organization with responsibilities and opportunities that differ from the formal Tree Committee. A challenge is to create a large, self -sustaining base of support. Lin Jensen has offered to build website; a priority is to find one or two people to take ownership and provide content. Barbara suggested connecting with parents who are involved in school conservation groups (Big Backyard, LHS clubs) and offered to explore BBY training. Gerry to collect names at Earth Day in May table, then Dan to reach out to those people. 11. We will have a table at Discovery Day on May 28 from 10-3. 12. Check https://www.preserve-lex-trees.org/ for updates on white pines at Center Recreation Complex. 13. Pat and Nancy to complete inventory of planting sites on east end of Mass. Ave. 14. Nancy to follow up with Charlie regarding collaboration with Celis Brisbin of Sustainable Lexington’s review of building guidelines. 15. Two sites noted where trees may be damaged from inadequate protection during construction: Bedford St. commercial development, 16 Winthrop St. 16. Lexington Living Landscapes would like to hold a library program in early fall by an arborist on what people should do to care for their trees. Arborist suggestions should be given to Charlie (Norm Helle is one that comes to mind.) 17. The next Regional Tree Advocacy group meeting will be held on June 1, focusing on public awareness campaigns. 18. The dedication of John Frey’s memorial in Tower Park will be held on June 13 at 11 am. Jim to reach out to Sean Dugan for publicity. 19. Mark Connor brought to our attention that the Town has accepted a lot on the exit ramp at Waltham St. and Rt. 2 for relocation of the Hosmer House. HDC may agree, and Historical Commission to consider on Wednesday. Mark asks for support for a holistic approach for Fletcher Park that includes the house on the site as part of the solution. 20. Marty presented logos for lawn signs. Group liked her first choice (modern line art image); she is to investigate whether it enlarges well and also to look for other images that may include roots. 21. Meeting adjourned at 9:58 am. Report on Tree Bylaw Enforcement and the Use of the OpenGov DPW Tree Permit THE TREE COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED THAT THE LEXINGTON TREE BYLAW IS NOT BEING ACCURATELY AND UNIFORMLY ENFORCED, RESULTING IN A LOSS OF CANOPY AND A LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE TOWN. Members of the Tree Committee reviewed selected demolition permits issued since January 20211 and related new construction permits. We identified issues related both to the use of the permit system and to the enforcement of the Tree Bylaw2. Our findings are as follows: 1) Demolition permits have been issued without an online tree permit submitted . The online permit has been used in only a fraction of teardown projects. Since March 1, 2021 approximately 100 demolition permits have been issued; only 47 online tree permits have been created. The permit to demolition ration has improved recently. but there are still cases where the online permit has not been submitted. Despite the requirement that a Tree Permit application be submitted before a demolition permit is issued, in many cases, the “Tree Warden Review” item was indicated as complete and a demolition permit was issued without the creation of a corresponding tree permit by the applicant. Significantly, we found other issues associated with tree bylaw enforcement at these properties; see, for example, the sites being developed by John Berglund in (5) below. 2) Demolition permits have been issued without certain online tree permit steps completed by the Tree Warden. In many cases, the “Tree Warden Inspection”, “Tree Removal Fee”, “Tree Removal Permit” steps are not completed but “Tree Warden Review” in the demolition permit is marked as complete and the demolition permit has then been issued. In some such issues, there is then no documentation of what the fee is and whether it has been paid (see also (6) below). Examples3: • 5 Skyview Rd • 303 Woburn St 1 When the online OpenGov (Viewpoint Cloud) DPW Tree Permit was first implemented. 2 At the time of this writing, the spreadsheet containing detailed information about individual trees required by the Tree Bylaw to be submitted with the demolition application has not yet been implemented. For this reason, information for this report was gleaned from the plot plans and comments in the OpenGov system records. 3 Documentation for each of the properties referenced in this report is contained in the associated .zip file distributed with the report. • 59 Laconia St 3) Tree permit fees have been assessed incorrectly. On July 28, 2021, the Attorney General approved Article 34 passed at Lexington 2021 Annual Town Meeting. The article increased the permit fee from $10 to $20 per removed DBH (diameter at breast height) inch and increased the mitigation fee from $100 to $200 for replacement inches not replanted. For the following demolition permits, the new required values were not used: DBH inches removed Payment Assess ed Correct Assessment • 38 Webster Rd 68” $680 $1360 • 203 Marrett Rd 20” $200 $400 • 59 Laconia St 89” $890 $1780 • 19 Patterson Rd 67” $670 $1340 4) Additional mitigation for larger trees is not applied consistently. To calculate the “replacement inches” on which the mitigation payment is calculated, a multiplier4 of the number of removed inches Is applied for trees with DBH greater than or equal to 24 inches. Here are examples where no multiplier was used: Assessed Replacement Inches/ Correct Assessed Rep. Inches/ DBH Mitigation Payment Required Mult. Mitigation Payment Required • 5 Munroe Rd 52” 52”/$5,200 2 (7/8/21) 104”/$10,400 48” 48”/$4,800 2 (7/8/21) 96”/$9,600 • 68 Colony Rd 24” 24”/$4,800 4 (8/20/21) 96”/ $19,200 124”/$14,800 296”/$39,200 For just these 2 sites, if no replanting was done, the additional mitigation if correctly calculated is $24,400. And, given these figures, the developers might have chosen not to remove the trees. 5) Some applicants explicitly provide false information to the Tree Warden that has then not been verified. There are cases in which developers have indicated to the Tree Warden that no trees were to be removed on a given site. They then do remove trees without reporting their activities. The Tree Warden has not questioned this and made no final visit to the property before signing off on the certificate of occupancy. The Tree Warden has explained that he expected applicants to let him know if more trees than were initially stated to come 4 After July 28, 2021 the multiplier is 4. It had been 2 since 2017. After July 28, 2021, the mitigation required per replacement inch is $200. It had been $100 since 2017. down were removed. However, this was not done and appropriate fee and mitigation payments were never made resulting in significant financial loss to the Town. The DPW Director has committed to having the Tree Warden always make the visit before signing off on the certificate of occupancy and to having the Tree Warden follow up with the applicants providing the false information5. To our knowledge, this follow-up never took place. Unfortunately, it appears that the practice is continuing. Example Cases – Below are examples of this practice by two developers, resulting in actual/potential losses to the Town of tens of thousands of dollars in payments. This developer has consistently repeated this practice. James Barr (Westview realty) • 19 Locke Lane* closed 11/14/2019 • 198 Bedford* closed 2/21/2020 • 48 Lincoln closed 1/12/2021 • 272 Lowell St closed 4/22/2021 • 26 Volunteer Way closed 6/14/2021 • 44 Paul Revere closed 1/14/2022 • 103 School St closed 1/24/2022 * Report to the Tree Committee on Tree Bylaw Enforcement Concerns (archived with 6/10/2021 Tree Committee Minutes) This practice seems to be actively practiced now by this developer: John Berglund • 526 Marrett Road • 30 Rockville Street • 2 Rolfe Road We note that online Tree Permit applications have not been submitted f or these 3 sites but demolition permits were, in fact, issued. 6) There is no consistent recording of removal fee payments required/made. It is not clear how the removal fee is paid and what controls are in place. See for example: • 19 Patterson Rd • 203 Marrett Rd • 300 Bedford St There are 2 items in the process which can record if a Tree Permit fee payment is made: • In the demolition permit(B-XX-XXX): “Tree Fee “ • In the tree permit (DPWT-XX-X): “Tree Removal Fee” Both are very rarely used. 5 July 10, 2021 email from DPW Director – in attachment #3 to July 21,2021 Tree Committee minutes 7) Mitigation payment process is unclear. It is not clear how information about required mitigation payments is consistently provided to the applicant and to the building department so it can confirm that payment was made and it is not clear what controls are in place. When required mitigation is stated, it is in terms of "need to replant xx 3" trees"-- not the more precise explanation of the number of inches of required replacement planting and the required mitigation payments if replanting does not occur. 8) Fees/mitigation payments have been waived with no explanation. Examples: • 2 Munroe Rd • 59 Ward St.