Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-09-TREE-minMarch 15, 2023 Draft Tree Committee Minutes for March 9, 2023. Meeting was conducted by Zoom from 7:30 AM To 9:30 AM. Attending: Tree Committee-Gerry Paul (Chair), Jim Wood, Nancy Sofen, Barbara Tarrh, Pat Moyer, Mark Connor (Co-Chair) Gloria Bloom Joe Pato (Selectboard) Dave Pinsonneault (Director-DPW) Lexington Community: Charlie Wyman, Martha B. Kraal, Dan Miller, Bill Singer 1. Jim Wood was appointed scribe and the approval of the February 9, 2023 minutes was delayed so we could go directly to discuss the Tree Canopy Report. 2. DPW Working Group – no report; no meeting was held 3. Tree Canopy Report - Dave Pinsonneault provided an over view of the report. Highlights: • 3% canopy increase 2014 to 2021 • 321 acres of canopy net gain • 61% of Lexington is in a residential area • There are planting opportunities in residential areas • UVM suggested a reassessment every 3 to 5 years • Dave commented that the next step is an urban forest management plan Questions/Comments: • What happened to the 2018 data point? • Can we see more detailed back-up data? Dave indicated that this was all he had received. • What growth should we have expected from normal healthy growth alone? • Dave indicated that in the future we might want to consider tree plantings in the 2 ½ inch caliper and 16-20 feet high range. • Can future reports be done faster than 2 years? • What did the study cost? • Have neighborhoods at environmental risk been identified? Dave indicated he will work Human Services and other Town Departments on that. • Does UVM have information concerning Lexington’s tree canopy relative to similar communities with similar built density as Lexington? • Is a 3% increase good (Vermont will present their Report and cover this) • Nancy indicated that from what she’s read that no amount of canopy is too much and that at least 40% in any local area is needed to get such benefits as reduction in heat islands. • Dan was concerned about using the report at a coarse level because, as opposed to say Cambridge, a large percentage of land in Lexington is conservation land. • What is the time table to finalize this report? • Nancy asked if we can get figures in more native form as opposed to a pdf so she can overlay a figure to a street map. At the end of the discussion Dave Pinsonneault said that tree committee members should send him any questions they wanted and he would answer them. (Suggest we send a copy of your questions to Gerry Paul also so we have all questions in one location ). Later in the meeting Gerry noted that the presentation to the Select Board by UVM was tentatively scheduled for April 24th. 4. Exemption from Chapter 87 and Lexington Tree By- Law • David Pinsonneault said that trees such as at 29 Barberry would not have been helped with pruning or maintenance spending. • Dave agreed that the following reasons listed in the report are not reasons for declaring a tree (a Town tree or a tree at a bylaw site) to be a hazard. o a tree simply in decline o a tree perceived to be in "bad shape" o a tree for which the risk can be mitigated by pruning or other means o a tree for which any risk is not current/imminent and he will make it clear to his staff that that is how the DPW will operate. • Mark Connor expressed the concern that trees at a work site seem to become hazards where they weren’t before. • Nancy Sofen said a large number of trees are listed in the inventory as in poor condition (but not hazards) and while the DPW might find it more efficient to remove such trees when they encounter them, the public has concerns when they are removed. She indicated that while it may be inefficient to hold a public hearing for such trees it would go a long way towards building public trust. Dave responded that trees are not removed by Town staff without a thorough analysis. • Nancy noted that in the bylaw, there is a requirement for hazard trees to be declared in writing asked where those records are kept. Dave said there has not been such documentation and that, from now on, developers who want a tree declared a hazard will have to provide a report by a certified arborist and will have to be concurred with by a Town arborist. • Nancy asked about records of hazard tree declarations for Town trees removed by the DPW. Dave said that this hadn’t been done and indicated that he would make note of that requirement. • Pat noted the need for better communication with the public when a Town tree is removed and Dave suggested that this be a subject of the next “mid-meeting.” • Gerry Paul noted that in cases where trees needed care, e.g., the hemlocks with woolly adelgid on Barberry Rd, it might be a thought to see if the neighborhood would be willing to spray the trees because of the value they provide. • Gloria Bloom, referencing the 37 pine removal situation, asked if neighbors could be n otified before the removal of a Town tree so that they could get another opinion from a certified arborist. • Dave did clarify that the Town could not accept the recommendation of the arborist hired by the neighborhood near the 37 pines because that arborist did not recommend an ANSI standard method for pruning the trees. On a different topic Mark Conner noted that across from M unroe School a small retaining wall had collapsed and the area could use trees on that side of the street especially since th e sidewalk is 12 feet wide. Dave said he would look into it. 5. 69 Pleasant St. Tree Removals Nancy asked Dave if a Tree Removal permit has been filed for 69 Pleasant St. Dave said Marc V. and Chris monitor that and he would ask them. (At that point Dave had to leave the meeting for another commitment). Nancy explained that the approval letter for the 69 Pleasant development specified that before any site work could begin, the Tree Bylaw must be complied with. In fact, no tree permit was filed. At a previous “mid-meeting” Dave said that Chris does not go to Planning Board meetings and thus Chris would not have known about the requirement. 6. Viewpoint Cloud tree permit implementation Nancy reviewed the requirements of Article 33 passed in 2021 annual town meeting: spreadsheet like collection of information about all trees on the property at both the beginning and end of a project. It turned out the Viewpoint Cloud does not have the capability for that kind of collection. Nancy Sofen said that IT hired a new person several months ago who produced a Viewpoint Cloud implementation that does collects the required information and does the required calculations However, when you enter DBH numbers, when you move the cursor down to the next line the numbers on the line you had just been working on change (lower). The Viewpoint Cloud vendor does not have a fix for the problem. Nancy and Gerry made it clear to IT that they couldn’t support the release of the application and that such a decision must come from the DPW. There have been no responses from Dave and Chris concerning this issue. We do not believe that Chris and Dave have reviewed this software. Gerry expressed concern that entry of information in the proposed implementation is a tedious process: information about each tree must be entered on a separate page and if an error is found a fter the permit application is submitted all data must be entered again and that the same process would have to be followed when the project was completed. He suggested that the approach using a separate (Excel or Google sheets) spreadsheet be revisited and investigated further. 7. Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) Tree Planting at Buckman Tavern. The tree Committee voted unanimously to support the DAR’s planting of a 3 to 4 inch diameter American Elm “Princeton Cultivar” on Buckman Tavern grounds. 8. Tree Committee 2023 Annual Town Meeting Articles 28 and 29 Article 29 - Added language to specify that the quorum is based on the number of members currently on the Tree Committee. 9. Effect change in tree Bylaw Compliance Mark Connor suggested that, if we want to effect change in a dramatic way, we look into changing the Tree Committee to a Tree Commission with enforcement powers. Joe Pato said a commission would have to be State authorized and wondered if the concept would have traction with the Select Board and Town Meeting. It was suggested that it might be useful to sketch out what functions would stay with the DPW (e.g., tree planting and removals) and what functions would be performed by a commission. Mark Connor agreed to investigate the concept further. Gerry Paul asked for feedback be sent to him on two documents concerning tree bylaw enforcement. 10. Liaison reports, Planning Board, PBC. Tree Concern Statement Group, other Nancy reported that the PBC was meeting that evening and would discuss the Integrated Design and Construction Policy. 11. Tree Concern Statement Barbara reported on the Tree Statement Group workshop: Approximately 40 people attended. Nancy spoke on the Challenges of Protecting the Tree Canopy focusing on Education, Regulation, Town Investment and Assistance to home owners. Respectfully submitted James C. Wood, Jr. Next regular meeting April 13, 2023 7:30 AM Note: Our next meeting may have to be in-person unless the state legislation extends the approval for virtual meetings. It would be at the Parker Room in the basement of the Town Office Building.