Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-14-TREE-minLexington Tree Committee Minutes, 9.14.2023 1. Present: members Mark Connor (co-chair), Pat Moyer (co-chair and minutes), Nancy Sofen, Barbara Tarrh, Gloria Bloom, Gerry Paul, Joe Pato (ex-officio). Regrets James Wood. Guests Nancy Trautman, Richard Reibstein, Patrick Mehr, Charlie Wyman, Marcia Gens, Charles Hornig, Pam Lyons, Kathleen Lenihan. 2. Meetfng was called to order at 7:33 AM. 3. Minutes of August 10, 2023 ,were approved. 4. Informatfon from the mid-meetfng with Dave Pinsonneault, Pat and Barbara were reviewed and shared with the committee. Neither Forestry staff nor Dave plan to attend our meetfngs at present. Dave feels our formal relatfonship is non-functfonal, although the mid-meetfngs are working for him. Fall plantfng will be focused on the area near Hanscom. He was also willing to consider areas along Mass. Ave that Nancy and Pat had marked out a year ago. The replantfng done behind the town tennis courts earlier in 2023 has had 5 of the 70 trees fail; those will be replaced by Fotf, and the shrubbery planned will also be planted this fall. A carving project for some remaining tall white pine stumps has not materialized as funding was not approved by Town Meetfng. The stumps have been removed. 5. We received the report of the May-August hazard trees removed. We were reminded of the ISA definitfon of hazard tree: flaw in the tree which cannot be remedied, which poses a risk to Town. 6. Pam Lyons presented informatfon about the MBTA bus stop issue. There is a proposal to move a stop from the front of Conte Bikes, to 1666 Mass Ave. There are advocates for staying vs. moving, but if we move the stop, we do not need to remove trees. To comply with access for disabled passengers at the Conte locatfon, tree and other obstructfons would have to be removed. We unanimously endorsed the move to 1666 Mass Ave. 7. Bylaw Working Group. (see below for their full presentatfon).We reviewed the current iteratfons of the changes proposed. We agreed that exempt hazard trees require no mitfgatfon. We discussed whether postfng permits for tree removal on abutters’ neighboring propertfes might save trees. (The homeowner might have a chance to object). After discussion, we agreed not to recommend this. We discussed a proposed sectfon concerning mitfgatfon on constructfon propertfes. This proposal would require that the first 20 feet of the setback be the first place chosen to replant, if replantfng required. We were generally in favor. A guest raised the questfon whether a town can impose this sort of restrictfon. The city of Springfield has done so. This will be reviewed with Town Counsel. 8. Bylaw proposal disseminatfon. Our Bylaw Working Group has met with Dave, and he was generally supportfve of their thoughts. We want to disseminate the proposal, get citfzen reactfons, and set prioritfes. We also want to simplify enforcement. It’s possible that parts of the bylaw need rewritfng. 9. Follow-up to meetfng with the Select Board on 8/21/23. There was some concern on our part that the Board misunderstood that the purpose of a working group (requested in the May presentatfon of the Tree Statement of Concern to the Board) was to revise the Tree Bylaw, not to improve its enforcement. Nancy has drafted and Pat and Mark have sent a clarifying letter to the Board, as well as to Town Manager and Dave. Dave has acknowledged receipt of this letter and stated his understanding of the mandate of the Working Group to Pat and Mark; his views align with ours. 10. We discussed our representatfon on the Working Group. The two co-chairs are invited and will attend. There will need to be ramping up of knowledge of the co -chairs. Gerry suggested Working Group meetfngs might usefully be public so that informed people can present. Gerry and Nancy both emphasized the large need for bylaw enforcement, and the fact that such enforcement will be financially beneficial to the Town. Joe Pato mentfoned that there has been discussion of a need for an enforcement officer for a variety of Town Bylaws. We discussed how and under which department such an officer might work. 11. Gerry presented a portfon of his research into specific recent examples of failures of Tree Bylaw enforcement (attached). For the record, detailed similar research was done by Nancy in 2021 and has been accepted and logged by us, and presented to the Select Board. We sensed that this was valuable informatfon from which to proceed, and questfoned whether it should be disseminated, and to whom. After much discussion of possibilitfes (public meetfng, the press, Town Meetfng members, the SB, the Town Meetfng member candidates forum, etc) we decided to place our trust in the Working Group for now, and to accept Gerry’s research with gratftude, archiving it in these minutes. 12. We discussed the Tree Inventory, initfated in 2017. 13. Pat discussed her progress on further disseminatfon of informatfon about tree value and legislatfon. There is interest in being a vehicle for same by the town’s informatfon officer, and by the Lexington Observer. The Lexington Times is another possibility. She is in need of informed writers to aid her. Suggestfons were made. 14. Barbara thanked Gloria for her steady and calm service to this Committee and to the Town. The rest of the committee joined in. Gloria’s term ends September 30, 2023. 15. The meetfng adjourned at 10:15 AM. Respectiully submitted, Patricia Moyer co-chair TREE PRESERVATION BYLAW FRAMEWORK On 8/10/2023 the Tree Committee voted 5-0 in support of pursuing these changes to the Tree Bylaw. Highlighted additions to be considered at 9/14/23 Tree Committee meeting. The Tree Bylaw Working Group recommends the following changes to the Tree Bylaw. NAME Tree Preservation Bylaw DEFINITIONS (NEW) Significant tree: Any tree 6” DBH or larger (replaces the term “protected tree” that is used in the current bylaw) Large tree: Any tree 24” DBH or larger. A Large tree is also a Significant tree. Hazardous tree: A tree that has a structural defect that makes it likely to fail in whole or in part, which cannot be mitigated by pruning or other means. Additionally, there must be a risk that failure will result in damage to persons or property. Enforcement Officer: The person charged with enforcing this bylaw. This person is not necessarily the Tree Warden and does not need to be an arborist. Street Frontage Zone: The area within 20’ of pavement of any lot side that fronts a street. This zone includes the Town ROW and is generally smaller than the building setback area. EXEMPTIONS FROM PROHIBITIONS ON REMOVAL (not unanimous) A. Emergency projects necessary for public safety, health and welfare as determined by the Director of Public Works or the Town Manager; (existing - may need to update to include post- removal notification for emergencies on private land) B. Trees that are hazardous as determined in writing by an arborist who has attained certification from the International Society of Arboriculture or through the Massachusetts Certified Arborist Program of the Massachusetts Arborists Association, using the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form. (AMENDED - it used to be the Tree Warden who declared a hazard tree) C.. Trees identified by the Commonwealth that pose a risk of disease or insect infestation. (existing) D. TBD: Clear, non-arbitrary guidelines for when Large trees in the setback that interfere with operation of existing or proposed solar panels may be removed. Mitigation for the removed tree would be required. (NEW - should this be an exemption, or based on appeal to the Tree Committee?) INCREASED SCOPE - in order of priority 1. A permit is required prior to removal of any Significant tree. A copy of the permit shall be posted on the tree for 1 week prior to its removal. FOR HOMEOWNERS: The applicant must submit a sketch showing their lot with structures and driveway, the location, size and species of tree to be removed, and any planned replanting that is required (see mitigation discussion below). Because there is no professional preparing a plot plan for homeowner permit applications, the homeowner must also attest that they own the tree to be removed. FOR LOTS UNDERGOING DEVELOPMENT Additional documents (certified plot plan identifying trees to be removed and retained, tree protection plan for retained trees, replanting plan) are required of builders. A demolition or building permit would not be granted until all of these are complete and the tree protections are in place. APPROVAL A permit shall not be denied for any tree not located in the lot setback area. Approval of a permit application to remove a Significant or Large tree from the setback area is conditioned on meeting the requirements of this bylaw and its accompanying regulations. PERMIT FEE Remains as set by the Select Board, currently $20/DBH inch. 2. Removal of certain trees is prohibited LARGE TREES A Large tree (24” DBH and greater) located in the setback of any property may not be removed except by appeal to the Tree Committee or if exempted in this bylaw or its regulations. If the appeal is granted, mitigation by replanting or payment to the Tree Fund shall be 4 times the DBH of the Large tree. If a Large tree is removed without prior permission, the penalty will be the greater of the assessed value of the tree as determined by a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists using the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers trunk formula method and the mitigation required under the bylaw. SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE STREET FRONTAGE ZONE A Significant tree located in the Street Frontage Zone of any property may not be removed except by appeal to the Tree Committee or if exempted in this bylaw or its regulations. If the appeal is granted, mitigation by replanting or payment to the Tree Fund shall be required. If a Significant tree in the Frontage Zone is removed without prior permission, the penalty will be the greater of the assessed value of the tree as determined by a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists using the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers trunk formula method and the mitigation required under the bylaw. 3. Clear-cutting is prohibited To prevent clear-cutting of lots, Significant trees with a combined DBH that is at least 20% [this number is a placeholder and is to be determined] of the total DBH of existing Significant trees located in the setbacks shall be retained and protected. If this number is less than the DBH of any one existing Significant tree, a minimum of one Significant tree shall be retained. The retained Significant tree need not be located in the setback. 4. Protections for retained Significant trees on lots under development Significant trees on a property under development, in the town ROW, and abutters’ trees, whose critical root zones are within the limit of work, shall be included in a Tree Protection Plan. A Tree Protection Plan is acceptable if it conforms to the regulations in the Tree Management Manual. Any deviation from these regulations, such as if a protected tree’s critical root zone must be impacted by construction activity, require that a plan to preserve the tree’s health be prepared by an arborist who has attained certification from the International Society of Arboriculture or through the Massachusetts Certified Arborist Program of the Massachusetts Arborists Association, and followed. Tree protections must be installed before any work begins and must remain in place throughout the entire construction process. 5. Tree Preservation Bylaw applies to all properties Permits for tree removals, prohibitions on Large tree removal, and some replanting requirements apply to all properties. There are different documentation and mitigation requirements for homeowner-occupied lots and those under development. 6. Planting, Replanting and Mitigation Requirements A replanting plan is required as part of the permit application, and should be updated if that application changes. For homeowners, mitigation by replanting or payment to the Tree Fund is required only for Significant trees removed from the front setback. On lots under development, all Significant trees removed from setback areas shall be mitigated by replanting or payment to the Tree Fund. Mitigation levels (1” per inch DBH for Significant trees less than 24” DBH, 4” per inch DBH for Large Trees 24” and greater if removal is allowed) remain the same as in the current bylaw. MANDATED MINIMUM PLANTING New trees must be planted in the Street Frontage Zone as close to the street as practicable to ensure the health of the tree and future shading of the street and sidewalk. When no overhead wires are present, the maximum number possible of large shade tree species shall be planted at a spacing of 27’. When overhead wires are present, the maximum number possible of understory trees shall be planted at a spacing of 10’-15’, or medium to large trees may be planted set back from the wires. The planting of new trees at this density along the street frontage is required on lots under development regardless of whether such planting exceeds the mitigation required. The street frontage planting requirement is waived if there are sufficient existing trees along the street frontage to satisfy the requirement. New trees must be planted if a gap of more than 27’ between street frontage trees exists. Homeowners must replant only to the extent required as mitigation for Significant trees removed from the front setback. Replacement trees shall be planted in the Street Frontage Zone as described above. PLANTING INCENTIVES A. New trees from the Large Shade Trees list shall be credited at 4x their DBH. B. A mechanism will be set up so that the Tree Fund may be used to subsidize (nursery voucher, or reimbursement) homeowners’ replanting costs. C.. A mechanism will be set up so that the Tree Fund may be used to subsidize (nursery voucher, or reimbursement) applicants’ minimum street frontage replanting costs beyond their required mitigation on lots under development. Applicants may not perform mitigation planting elsewhere and then request subsidization for street frontage planting. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Permit denials by the enforcement officer can be appealed to the Tree Committee, who will develop standards by which appeals are decided. This might include financial hardship for homeowners. We want to minimize the enforcement officer’s role in judgment calls and allow the enforcement officer to not need to be a certified arborist. The two common large invasive trees in this area, Norway maple and black locust, are both numerous and provide ecosystem benefits, and so are not exempt from any provision of the bylaw. Sustainable Lexington and Maggie Peard will be engaged to help create standards for when Large setback trees or Street Frontage Zone trees might be removed to allow for solar panels. This might include requesting an analysis of shading and options for pruning prepared by the solar installation company. Our current bylaw allows replanting on abutting properties with neig hbors’ permission, and planting on the nearby Town ROW would be possible with permission from the DPW. There should be explicit consequences for tree protection violations. We should start updating the recommended tree list and tree protection regulations now. We need to engage with IT to integrate the permit application process early in the development of the bylaw. We need to engage with Planning about defining how the bylaw applies to various types of residential developments. For the purposes of the bylaw, is a lot the original property boundary or is it the new lots created by the development? What is Planning’s authority in this distinction? This will require more staff time, which we understand is a challenge. Is it true that fees should cover the staff time needed to administer the bylaw, and if so can we ensure that the fees are structured to staff bylaw enforcement adequately?