HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-08-TREE-minMinutes, Lexington Tree Committee
June 8, 2023
Present: James Wood, Pat Moyer, Nancy Sofen, Gerry Paul, Barbara Tarrh, Gloria Bloom,
Mark Connor, Joe Pato (Select Board liaison), Dave Pinsonneault (DPW), Charles Hornig
(Planning Board), Charlie Wyman, Marcia Gens. The meetfng began at 7:31 AM on Zoom.
1. Mark Connor called the meetfng to order. Gerry Paul was appointed scribe. The
minutes of the April 11 meetfngs of the Tree Committee were approved without
revision.
2. DPW/Tree Committee Working group – Barbara Tarrh summarized the working group
mid-meetfng 5/31/23. Attending: Dave Pinsonneault, Mark Connor, Nancy Sofen, Barbara Tarrh.
a. Discovery Day review
• - Presence of DPW included Black Earth and the water dept.
• - Possible dept rep for 2024 if scheduling permits. DPW will order extra Arbor
Day trees for distributfon to interested attendees by TC (to add to what LFGC
offers).
b. Tennis court allée plantfngs finished; additfonal shrubs to be planted in fall 2023.
c. Street Tree plantfng will resume in fall; Mark inquired about Munroe Cemetery tree
plantfng; trees are replaced/supplemented as they die. Neighbors do not want to
replace dead/dying maples.
d. Canopy survey to be presented to SB on 6/5; Forestry working w UVM to answer
questfons regarding more access to digital data.
e. New IT page live on 6/1.
f. Regarding Tree Inventory, Chris F will keep pushing with Arbor Pro to finalize report to
get it online.
g. Tree removal report ready for next TC meetfng. Some discussion regarding species
susceptfble to drought (ash, tulip tree, maples) and those hardier (oaks, hickories). It
was noted that lindens are susceptfble to gas leaks.
h. Detailed discussion about pursuing a larger setback via next Tree Bylaw revision
• For tree plantfng program focus on setback vs right of way
• Possibly give a distance from edge of street/roadway vs setback from ROW
• May need to look at different zones
• Possible create ‘Protected Tree Zone’ for lots not under constructfon (note:
not exactly sure about this note)
• Look at possibility of extending care/guarantee from 1-yr to 3-5 years
• Possibly extend fencing for constructfon sites to dripline of neighbor’s trees
• Dave will want to see what the final proposal might be
i. Elm on traffic island at Harrington and Mass Ave moved to within island for Battle Green
project.
j. Next meetfng brainstorm regarding Bylaw Enforcement Working Group
k. Fiske PTO partnered with DPW to plant 5-6 trees to shade playing fields. PTO funded
trees. Potentfal model for other school site tree needs.
Dave added the following:
l. Reenforced comments above about making setback tree plantfng more appealing
to home owners with longer warranty.
m. Confirmed that street tree plantfng will contfnue in the fall
n. The DPW will develop a proposal for further work by UVM on the canopy study
and asked for TC input on what to request from UVM.
In response to a questfon from Nancy, Dave indicated that data from the canopy
study should be available as layers in the GIS system.
Dave summarized the survey and the need to get more granularity and the need
for an urban forest study to get a roadmap for the future.
Dave indicated that by October or November he would know if funding for
further UVM work could come out of the FY’ 24 budget or if it would have to wait
for the FY’ 25 budget funding. He estfmated a cost in the $30-50K range.
o. He said Jim Kelly, the building commissioner, indicated that the new VPC tree
permit was now being used by a few developers. He confirmed that developers
have been told to provide updates in VPC if additfonal trees are removed and
stated that Chris will check before the CO issuance that the final submission by
the developer matches the reality on the ground.
p. Dave will check with Chris on the measurements he took relatfve to the large oak
removed at 6 Sheridan. Dave indicated that he spoke to Town Counsel and the
new 3 year look back will only apply to removals after the attorney general
approves the bylaw change.
In response to a questfon from Jim Wood, Joe Pato will check whether a builder
who repeatedly flaunts the Tree Bylaw can be prohibited from doing further work
in the Town.
3. Monthly report of Town Trees removed as hazards – Dave reported he was out of the
office this week and will send the report to the committee next week. He indicated that
the Tree Fund would contfnue to be used for plantfng only and was not a candidate for
funds for the UVM study.
4. Elect new chair – Pat Moyer and Mark Connor were elected as co-chairs and will share
responsibility for leadership of the committee.
We agreed that looking for candidates now for the 2 associate member positfons was a
good idea even though the bylaw change to expand the committee is not yet approved
by the attorney general.
5. Tree Bylaw Enforcement Issues (this item was actually considered last in the meetfng).
Gerry reviewed two reports he completed (attached):
• Irregularities in Collection of Tree Bylaw Fees and Mitigation Payments – he
presented tables in the report that listed properties for which apparently permit fees
and/or required mitigation payments had not been collected.
• Irregularities in Assessment of Tree Bylaw Fees and Required Mitigation – he
reviewed the single table in the report. He explained the significance of the footnotes
in the table (e.g., a plot plan showing trees to be removed was submitted, an as-built
plan showing trees removed was submitted, etc.). Gerry indicated he would be
sending the report to Dave for his feedback.
• In response to a question by Mark, Gerry commented that he believed that the
bylaw had no gray areas and that enforcement problems were not due to
misunderstanding of the bylaw.
• In response to a question by Pat, Gerry confirmed that there were properties at
which the bylaw was followed with no irregularities.
• Gerry explained that he was confident that he had all payment information based
on an email from the IT director.
• In response to a question by Barbara, Gerry emphasized that he believed that most
builders want to (and do) follow the bylaw and that the root cause of the observed
irregularities lay elsewhere.
• Jim Wood suggested that a tree removal permit not be issued until the developer
has provided a plan showing the to-be-built plan. Gerry commented that, in his
view, the problem was simple: the original plot plan shows the trees on the
property before construction, the as-built plan or the tree warden visit before the
CO is issued indicates the trees that remain. That is all that is needed for a proper
assessment of fees and mitigation. Mark commented with the exceptfon of hazard
tree declaratfons, that has lacked clarity in the past, the process seemed more or less
black and white and that a clear articulation of the simplicity of the problem would
do away with attempts to explain away irregularities as due to the “complexity of
the process”, “vagaries of the bylaw”, or “the fluid situation during development”
- so it is made clear that the issue is one of enforcement.
• Nancy commented that builders have told her the tree bylaw is straightforward
and they know how to follow it and that in discussions with people in other towns
with bylaws like ours she has been told that the bylaws work in those towns.
• In response to a question from Pat about how builders deal with problems at a site
(rock, ledge, etc.), Mark commented that most builders do due diligence relative
to site issues before beginning a project.
• Gerry made the point that all the irregularities cannot be explained away as due to
“a staffing issue.” He pointed out that: multiplying by 2 or 4 for removed trees
with DBH greater or equal to 24” to calculate required mitigation, using the
correct fee or mitigation rates, and waiting for payments to be made before
approving demo permits or certificates of occupancy are not labor intensive tasks.
He added that using the as-built plot plans, if they are submitted, could eliminate
the time spent on final site visit.
The Tree Committee voted unanimously to accept the two reports and agreed that the
reports should form the basis for further discussion on bylaw enforcement.
After considering options on how to move forward, it was agreed that, consistent with
the “ask” from the Tree Concern Statement group, an independent group should be
established.
The committee then voted unanimously to send a request to the Town Manager to
establish an ad-hoc committee to review enforcement of the tree bylaw composed of
members from the Tree Committee, the DPW and the Town Manager’s office.
Nancy volunteered to draft the request.
6. Tree Concern Statement – Charlie reviewed the presentatfon to the Select Board on May
22. He noted that there are over 1000 signatures on the Statement of Concern. Joe
reported that there was interest (but not a commitment) on the Select Board in the
“celebratory goal” of plantfng 250 trees per year for the next few years. There was a
discussion about how the Tree Concern Statement group and other non-profits could
play a role in terms of outreach on proposed bylaw changes, setback plantfng, etc.
In response to a questfon by Mark about what could pass Town meetfng involving tree
removal on “private” land, Gerry said he thought that a requirement for
permitting/notfficatfon by tree removal companies had the highest chance of passing.
7. Liaison reports: Planning Board, PBC, other
a. In response to a questfon from Barbara and Nancy, Charles Hornig explained that
while there were many common elements for different types of zoning (OSRD,
SPRD, village overlays), there are differences among them.
b. In response to a questfon from Mark, Charles summarized the state of the Tracer
Lane development: the planning board approved the proposal but with many
conditfons. The project is in the “appeals period.”
8. Nancy reported that the PBC presented updates to the Integrated Design Policy at the
last SB meetfng and that there will be a “green engineer” representfng the owner (the
Town) in building projects.
Respectiully submitted,
Gerry Paul