HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-26-TREE-min
Lexington Tree Commi?ee
Minutes of Special Mee?ng
11.26.23
Held in the large common room
Lower level, Cary Public Library
1.Mee?ng called to order at 3:15 PM
2.Present: Mark Connor, co-chair, Pat Moyer co-chair and minutes, Gerry Paul, member, Nancy Sofen,
member, Todd Rhodes, Dan Miller, Alicia Morris, Ingrid Klimoff, Charles Hornig, Peter Kelley.
3.Pat laid out the process she hopes to follow during the first mee?ng of the Bylaw Enforcement
Working Group (BEWG): introduc?ons, consensus on the goal, establishment of mee?ng ?me and
schedule, and ground rules.
4. The major agenda item being fleshing out all of our understanding of current issues with enforcement,
Nancy was asked to lead point by point discussion which Pat moderated and to which Gerry
contributed..
Current lookback period for developers is 36 months, but is difficult to enforce unless we have
data, lot by lot, about what trees came before. Par?al data exists in stump measuring, Google
Earth.
Permit applica?on, use by developers. Improved use, improved correct and complete use, with
resul?ng accurate $$ calcula?ons, in last month. Issues: what caused improvement--?was there a
mee?ng with developers? Can IT glitch be fixed? Does building commissioner seamlessly get
tree warden approval? How to ensure this improvement is durable?
Current process of no?ng trees le? and trees removed during construc?on is corrupted by
informal, post permi?ng informa?on, by trees being removed without any no?fica?on, and by
difficul?es both with a clunky, tree by tree no?fica?on process, and with difficul?es reading the
pre-and post plot plans. Could a spreadsheet help? How to ease the process for developers.
Overuse by staff and developers of “hazard tree” designa?on. THIS IS FELT TO BE A PROMINENT
PROBLEM. Na?onal standards for hazard designa?on should be followed, with cer?fied arborist
involved in each tree. Should goal be for TW to be a cer?fied arborist and to be full-?me?
Community feels trust broken with town on this issue.
Tree protec?on during construc?on. Bylaw states fencing per Tree manual (ie at dripline) to be
up before and during. This is flagrantly disregarded. How to enforce? Could enforcement be
moved to building inspector? Could fencing be placed at the ini?al mee?ng with TW? Can the
building inspector/ TW be authorized to use stop work order when bylaw disregarded? If
dripline imprac?cal, can we insist arborist consult on trees affected? Should we require
developer to take out a bond on protected trees? Should guidelines for variances be se?led at a
friendly mee?ng before construc?on begins? (Kelley)
Fee payment is haphazard and some?mes wrong.
Tree warden is at ?mes inexact in specifying what he means—recommended plan?ng list vs.
large shade tree list, eg.
?
Removing of town/setback trees occurs and the consequences of this viola?on o?en not clear to
public. Full transparency needed. Access to Viewpoint Cloud limited. (as an aside, should be
given to all members of BEWG).
Comments from non TC members. Developers feel unfairly singled out. What they as temporary
owners have to do, all property owners should do. (eg permi?ng, fees). Apply bylaw to all.
(Kelley). TW can’t do his job with ½ ?me job. Town ignores trees on conserva?on land being
destroyed by vines. (Klimoff). Tree concerns need to be seen by all (staff, us, town) as
community issues similar to clean water, wetland protec?on, safe and reliable electricity, etc.
(Morris)
Mee?ng adjourned at 4:50 pm.