HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-13-TREE-min
Tree Commi?ee Minutes 7/13/23
1. Mee?ng called to order at 7:35 AM.
2. Discussion of scribing. Pat’s offer to scribe, going forward, was discussed and accepted.
3. Mee?ng minutes of 6/8/23 were approved.
4. Present: Gerry Paul, Pat Moyer (scribe), Mark Connor (presiding), Nancy Sofen, Barbara Tarrh, Charles
Hornig, Charlie Wyman, Joe Pato, Gloria Bloom
5. Discussion of u?lity of our in-between mee?ngs with DPW. Felt to be produc?ve and improving of our
rela?onship, and also help move our regular mee?ng along. Nancy suggested crea?ng an agenda so that
we could work towards resolu?on of some issues. The group mee?ng with Dave Pinsonneault is now
composed of Mark C, Barbara T, and Pat M. We did not yet receive Dave’s report (he is on jury duty and
the mee?ng didn’t occur this month); nor did we hear about hazard trees removed in last 2 months.
6. Nancy led a discussion of the process and preliminary results of the Tree Bylaw working group. The
group is composed of Nancy S, Barbara T, Gerry P, and Dan Miller. The very preliminary proposal is
a?ached. Much discussion followed. Discussion topics included: a) how the process for permi?ng and
inspec?on, and tree inspec?on, would be financed; b)educa?ng the town staff and public about the
value of trees; c) inquiring from towns with similar bylaws about how they enforce them; d) what type of
staff might this entail-- possibly an “enforcement agent”, not necessarily a TW; e) a need to have an
appeals process, and who that might be (?TC); f) that ideally the enforcement agent would be a
preserva?onist, but with very clear guidelines to use so that decision is easy to make and refer to during
disputes; and g) the need for a homeowner to hire an arborist to make health decisions about the tree.
Strategy was discussed for each of these. Permi?ng and only front setbacks first? Should the bylaw
group priori?ze vs trying to get it all done at one Town Mee?ng? Priori?zing setback trees and large old
trees? Town Mee?ng can pass a bylaw, but that does not mean that the Town can do it fiscally or
organiza?onally. If needs exceed $$, there would need to be an override called by the SB. Is there
enough support for this?
There is much educa?on and networking to be done. We need to work with other sustainability groups,
coordinate with DPW, expand public educa?on. The issue of seeking DPW approval was discussed.
At next mee?ng, more details will be presented, looking for a statement of support before beginning to
dialogue with other groups and the community.
7. Discussion of Pat and Mark’s le?er to the Town Manager (reques?ng he set up a working group as
suggested in item 5 of the Tree Statement of Concern) and his reply. TM wants to meet with SB before
establishing the group. He also wants to work on a complaint he has received. The SB mee?ng will
happen some?me in August. Joe men?oned that more info about the structure of the group, the skills
needed, and goals would be helpful to the SB. He suggested a group of 3-5 might be most effec?ve.
8. Regula?ons about site plan review are being reviewed by Planning Board who meets next Wed.
9. Follow up to the May presentation of the TSOC. Pat reported that the 3 people who had responded to
Charlie Wyman’s call for a working group to educate the public spent an hour with a retired biologist from U.
of Louisville, who was part of a citizen’s group there who, in response to inequitable tree planting in the town
and to drastic cutting, succeeded in getting the City to get a tree canopy study and to act on it. Charlie spoke of
a Wellesley initiative called “Tree Tags”, in which Scout groups labelled trees, their carbon catching abilities,
and their monetary value to the Town.
10. Barbara Tarrh took over as scribe at 9:10 AM as Pat had to leave.
11. Nancy Sofen suggested that the Tree Committee draft a list of questions for UVM, which did our canopy
study, requesting additional data to better understand areas where canopy has been or will be lost. Street and
setback trees might be prioritized. She will send us all an email asking for suggestions to be discussed at our
August meeting.
12. Charlie Wyman suggested that the Bylaw Working group use the many organizations that signed the
TSOC to help make residents aware of proposed bylaw changes.
13. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Pat Moyer and Barbara Tarrh
ATTACHMENT
Preliminary Proposal for Tree Bylaw Change
Introduc?on
The Tree Bylaw Working Group has researched bylaws and trends in other ci?es and towns
both in Massachuse?s and across the country. We have discussed our values and priori?es,
what works and doesn’t work with Lexington’s current bylaw, and what we think is poli?cally
possible at this ?me.
The values that a Tree Bylaw should advance include suppor?ng residents’ quality of life now
and in the future, climate resiliency, and shared responsibility by all residents. That trees
provide ecosystem services and public health benefits beyond the borders of the land where
they grow jus?fies regula?on of trees on private land. It is best if there is a distribu?on of
different aged trees in an urban forest, yet current research shows that the newly planted trees
will likely have a short lifespan. These factors led us to propose 4 main new policies that
priori?ze:
Maintaining and growing the town’s tree canopy
Shading streets and public spaces
Preserving mature trees
Reducing heat islands
An equitable, objec?ve, transparent and accountable process.
A first dra? of the resul?ng four major policy proposals follow. They are broadly described at
this point and require further defini?on.
Policy Proposal #1: The Tree Bylaw will apply to all private property setback areas
Summary: Any provisions of the Tree Bylaw that apply to private property shall apply to all
proper?es, not just those on which there is major construc?on. We propose that the bylaw will
con?nue to apply only to setback areas.
Analysis: The principle that underlies the regula?on of tree removals is that trees provide a
public benefit, regardless of where they are located. While most tree removals in Lexington are
related to development, tree loss on other proper?es also impacts public health, resiliency and
quality of life for neighbors and the town at large.
Limi?ng the scope of the bylaw to property setback areas priori?zes the edges of proper?es
that most impact public spaces and abu?ers.
Pros:
● Increases the number of trees protected under the Tree Bylaw
● Is logically consistent with the principle that trees on private property provide public
benefit, regardless of whether that property is under development.
● Shares responsibility for preserving trees among all property owners so that the burden
is not just on developers.
Cons:
● Requires addi?onal Town Resources for tracking and enforcement
● May add costs for homeowners
To be decided:
● Circumstances requiring mi?ga?on
● Exemp?ons
Precedents: Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Providence, RI, Har?ord, CT, Princeton,
NJ,
Policy proposal #2: Require a permit for any tree removal
Summary: Under the current bylaw, Tree Removal Permits are required only for trees removed
in the setbacks on proper?es undergoing major construc?on. Homeowners may remove trees
with no permit required, and there is no record of how many trees are removed or for what
reasons.
Increasingly, other ci?es and towns locally and around the country require a permit for any tree
removal on private property and give the enforcing agent authority to approve or deny the
permit based on specific criteria. We recommend that Lexington adopt the prac?ce of
requiring a permit for all tree removals, with condi?ons such as required mi?ga?on a?ached
for certain removals. Our current thinking is that a permit would be required for all tree
removals, while restric?ons or mi?ga?on might apply only for trees in setbacks.
Analysis: Lexington can use an expanded permit process to collect informa?on that will be?er
inform tree preserva?on efforts. A permit for tree removals on all proper?es may be the only
mechanism available to enforce the 3-year lookback period.
Pros:
● Provides data about tree removals
● Provides informa?on necessary for enforcement of 3-year lookback period and
● Provides informa?on necessary for enforcement of any required mi?ga?on on sites
without major construc?on
Cons:
● May require addi?onal Town Resources for tracking and enforcement
● Adds work and possible costs for homeowners
To be decided:
● Permit fee?
● Grounds for approval or denial
● Exemp?ons
● Appeals process
Precedents: Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Somerville, Providence, RI, Har?ord, CT, Princeton, NJ
Policy Proposal #3: Prohibit the removal of certain large trees
Summary: Despite the term “protected tree”, the current bylaw does not prohibit the removal
of a tree – just its mi?ga?on. This change will prohibit the removal of certain large trees.
Analysis: This reflects the posi?on that “trees are a public good” and that certain trees deserve
enhanced protec?on. This will provide a test case for the Town’s appe?te for “prohibi?on” of
tree removal.
Pros:
● Saves trees that provide most benefits for climate change mi?ga?on/resilience and
quality of life
● Preserves oldest trees for op?mal age diversity of canopy
Cons:
● May require addi?onal Town Resources for tracking and enforcement
● Adds work and possible costs (e.g. arborist to declare a tree a hazard) for homeowners
To be decided:
● Tree size, species
● Where on property
● Tree Warden's role
● Appeal process
● Excep?ons
● Ac?on if prohibi?on is violated (whatever the ac?on, minimum requirement should be
that under exis?ng bylaw).
Precedents: Providence, RI; Springfield, MA.
Policy Proposal #4: Required replan?ng
Summary: Despite its many updates, Lexington’s Tree Bylaw has not succeeded in encouraging
the reten?on or replacement of protected trees during private property development. Builders
o?en do not a?empt to replant in order to mi?gate for removed trees and choose instead to
pay fees as mi?ga?on into the Tree Fund. New policies should emphasize replan?ng as the
preference, and should require documenta?on if tree replacement is deemed imprac?cal.
Analysis: The current Tree Bylaw sets out the condi?ons and requirements for tree protec?on
on private property undergoing significant development. If protected trees must be removed, it
outlines rules for tree replacement and, when replacement does not occur, provides a formula
for calcula?ng dollar amounts for mi?ga?on. In general, enforcement of these rules and
guidelines has been problema?c, and even compliant developers will choose a financial penalty
in lieu of tree replacement. In order to maintain, protect and increase tree canopy, mechanisms
must be developed to priori?ze living trees on development sites, via reten?on and physical
protec?on, or by minimum replan?ng requirements, vs accep?ng fee payment.
Pros:
● Addresses con?nued loss of tree canopy to development
● May encourage reten?on of exis?ng shade trees
● Enhances neighborhood appeal
Cons:
● Complicates the enforcement process by requiring more documenta?on
● Uncertain availability of replacement tree stock
● Requires educa?on of developers who are familiar with the current system’s fee
workaround
● Increased burden on contractors for higher level of replan?ng needs to be monitored
and may require bonding
To be decided:
● Possible inclusion of replan?ng loca?ons outside of development site
● What cons?tutes a reasonable effort to create a replan?ng plan
● Incen?ves
● Tree list
Precedents: Oakland, NJ*; Newton, MA; Cambridge, MA; Concord, MA*; Har?ord, CT;
Sammamish, WA
*Has separate permits for Commercial (non-primary resident) and Residen?al tree removal
permits; good language for discouraging fee-based mi?ga?on
**Permits replan?ng in other sites