HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-19-TREE-min
Minutes of Lexington Tree Commi?ee
10.19.23
1.Mee?ng called to order at 7:33 AM. Present: Mark Connor, co-chair, Pat Moyer, co-chair and minutes,
Barbara Tarrh, James Wood, Nancy Sofen, Gerry Paul, the 4 other members; Joe Pato, Select Board,
Charlie Wyman, Todd Rhodes, and towards the end, Ma? Fo?.
2.Minutes of 9.14.23 mee?ng were approved as revised, unanimously.
3. We reviewed the mid-mee?ng with Dave Pinsonneault, Barbara and Pat.
We discussed that our support of moving the Conte bike shop bus stop (see 9.14 minutes) may have
been premature, not fully informed. Mark suggested we delay weighing in on ma?ers such as the bus
stop as many factors not yet known to us may impact the decision. We want to come out In favor of
saving and suppor?ng trees. Dave at the mid-mee?ng indicated that was his goal as well.
We discussed the IT/permi?ng process and prior issues with it. We debated having IT manifest the new
system to the Tree Commi?ee, vs. leaving it to the future working group. The consensus was not now to
invite the IT director to a full TC mee?ng, as he will present to members of the mid-mee?ng, hopefully in
November. He will likely also present to the future working group. The en?re commi?ee strongly wishes
to understand the document and its problems, and would like a separate presenta?on.
Tree Inventory update will happen over the winter, and then be released to the public.
No quote from UVM re Canopy requests; Valente is the go between. There is a need to get a quote so
that it can go into the budge?ng process. Valente is applying pressure. UVM is slow. Where it would go
into the budget is unclear.
Bylaw changes have been presented to Town Counsel, and will be reviewed with Town Manager, in a
monthly mee?ng, at some point.
The trees treated for EAB in 2019, per Dave, appear all to have survived but one. Town trees are
inspected for health every 3 years by members of the Forestry team, on a rota?ng basis.
Status of Chung memorial tree, first choice on the Ba?le Green. We discussed the memorial tree
process. If anything goes on the Ba?le Green—it must be approved by Select Board. It is in the hands of
DPW and Town Manager now, and both appear to be ac?vely engaged, per Pat, who is in regular contact
with Ms. Chung and others involved.
We discussed fall plan?ng. Dave told us that 45 trees might get planted, but has in the past commi?ed
to plan?ng 70 trees each fall and spring. In contrast, the Tree Statement of Concern proposed an annual
250 tree goal. We appointed Jim Wood to work with DPW to ensure the current commitment is
delivered. Among his du?es will be inves?ga?ng the status of setback tree requests from denizens of the
Town.
4. Bylaw working group presented to CLC and came away understanding a great need for public
educa?on on the value of trees. In par?cular, the process of ins?tu?ng a permi?ng process for
removing private property trees is now poorly understood. BWG will meet with builders and Fo? to
converse and understand issues with permi?ng, should this sort of bylaw proposal survive the current
process of educa?on and publicity.
5.Possible bylaw changes are now firm proposals. There will be a public forum Nov 2, 7 pm at the
Community Center, with a possible virtual forum Dec. 6. The goal is public input. BWG and Zoning will
meet Dec. 13. BWG awai?ng Town Counsel input, v.s. BWG mee?ng with Planning Dept. Oct. 24, and
with Planning Board TBD. We discussed the idea of using community bulle?n boards (library,
community center) to publicize tree value, our work, upcoming mee?ngs, etc. No conclusion drawn yet.
6. Gerry will con?nue monitoring our Town email.
7. Charlie suggested the Nov. 2 mee?ng be a posted mee?ng of the Tree Commi?ee. Joe told us that if a
quorum of us is present, which the BWG endorses, it must be. Pat will post.
8. There was interest in being a new associate member by someone Pat knows, and with whom she
explored. She is unable to meet at our current 7:30 AM ?me. We wondered if we could/should change
our mee?ng ?me and will discuss next month. Evening ?me might be be?er eg for parents, young
working people.
9. Pat indicated she had heard from the Town Manager that the working group is forming. He asked that
our commi?ee representa?ves (Mark and Pat) chair the group. We were pleased to hear this and
assented. Pat will let the TM know. Other members so far: Dave, Dan Miller, Tim Lee of the Design
Advisory Commi?ee. TM needs to appoint someone from his side, find another community member,
and get a SB member. Joe said this would either be himself or Jill Hai. Pat suggested that we meet
weekly or every other week to get the work done. Charlie suggested the chairs bring concrete proposals
and agenda. S?ll unclear: will these mee?ngs be public? Will it allow invitees, such as those who have
done our research over the last 3 years?
10. We were thrilled to hear from Ma? Fo?. He stated he came for two reasons: to suggest we modify
the list of allowed trees to be planted to include Thuja occidentalis plicata, a NW North American na?ve
which grows 60-70 feet there, less high here, and is desired by builders. He suggested we review the
large shade tree list, as well as the en?re list. He wondered why we specified the invasive Norway maple
as a protected tree. We relayed our concerns: the Town has so many of them that making them easy to
remove would denude the canopy; and that dis?nguishing between large such maples, and clumps of
their offspring, in a bylaw, makes that bylaw difficult to understand and enforce. We invited him to
return when we re-look at the allowed trees. He informed us that there are, s?ll at this ?me of year,
many available healthy bare root trees. He specified that the survival of smaller rather than larger trees
is be?er percentage-wise. He es?mated that more than 80% of the Town’s yearly plan?ngs, survive. Care
of planted trees, he said, “varies.”
11. Issues for future agendas: invi?ng IT re the permit process; reviewing our list of allowed trees and
trees ge?ng 4X credit (large shade); how to get to understand how the tree bylaw is communicated to
builders; should we take a posi?on on the proposal for new staff who oversee tree ma?ers—an
enforcement officer, an asst. superintendent, a full ?me tree warden?
12. Mee?ng adjourned at 10 AM.
Respec?ully submi?ed,
Pat Moyer