The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-03-14-TREE-min Lexington Tree Commi?ee Minutes 3.14.2024 1. The mee?ng began at 7:30AM. Present: Mark Connor and Pat Moyer (co-chairs), Gerry Paul, Jim Wood, Nancy Sofen, Barbara Tarrh, Gavin Grant (members); Rachel Summers (prospec?ve associate member), Dave Pinsonneault (DPW); Joe Pato (Select Board);Charlie Wyman (Lexington Living Landscapes). 2. Minutes of 2.8.2024 were accepted unanimously. 3. We reviewed items of mutual concern with Dave. a. Spring plan?ng will consist almost en?rely of resident requested understory and large shade trees. Species already ordered. Eﬀort has been coordinated by Jim, Chris, and Julie of DPW. Trees to be sited in consulta?on with DPW staﬀ and homeowners and will occur in front setback. Plan?ng by Fo? et al in May. No wri?en contract with homeowner, rather a discussion of care and maintenance at ?me of site visit. b. Fo? coordina?ng with school dept will move a couple of the Diamond London plane trees planted too closely together c. We may hear more from UVM (canopy study) in 2 weeks d. May 1 is current goal for comple?ng this year’s update of the tree inventory. e. Arbor day is last week in April. Chris and Barbara working together; 500 ?ny trees ordered from Mass. Arborist Assn— some for Garden Club, some for our giving away, some for a this year giveaway to begin the plan?ng of 250 trees for the th 250. f. Dave will update us on the Tree Fund at April mee?ng; and on Hazard Trees removed (today by email. (see below) g. Water bags will be tried on 12 newly planted and scien?ﬁcally observed trees this plan?ng season or next. h. DPW is applying for a state Challenge grant to hire a consultant to help dra? an urban forest master plan. Such dra?ing will be a public process. Grant applica?on due in fall. i. If our bylaw revision ar?cles pass we will need new regs in the Tree Manual. A subcommi?ee of us will need to work with Dave. j. If Dave’s budget request for addi?onal staﬀ member goes through they would able to start 7/1. Hiring has been diﬃcult per Dave. k. Some of the 1-2 yo new center trees looking iﬀy—Dave will be monitoring; some under warranty. Hone locusts a worry l. A member wondered about ra?onale for the choice of 2 Kentucky coﬀee trees for Emery Pk. Good street tree, a?rac?ve ﬂowers, lack of acorns (messy, hard for mobility impaired) 4. We discussed and ul?mately unanimously agreed on a strong le?er of support for Ar?cle 33 (developing a parcel of land for aﬀordable housing (a?ached). Pat plans to a?end Town Mee?ng and read it at the ?me of debate. 5. As above; Tree Manual revision needs doing. Volunteered— Nancy, Gavin, Barbara, Tim Lee to be invited. Large Shade /tree and Suggested Tree lists need revision: Jim, Gavin, Rachel and maybe Barbara and maybe Pat will do. Mark will liase. 6. Applicant for associate membership Rachel Summers joined the mee?ng, introduced herself, and was welcomed. 7. Jim reviewed progress on the spring plan?ng. 66 trees to go in residents’ setbacks have been requested. Residents o?en prefer understory ﬂowering trees. In the next plan?ng cycle we will re- emphasize the need for large shade trees. Trees are ordered several mos. Ahead of ?me from Schichtel. They have an availability list. Jim will forward to Pat and she will forward to the group. JIM WAS THANKED FOR HIS DOGGED AND SUCCESSFUL WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND CHRIS IN GENERATING THIS PLANTING LIST AND SHEPHERDING RESIDENT REQUESTS. 8. We again recognized the need for the DPW to have a con?nuously updated list of plan?ng sites available. How to work with them?— not solved. 9. Discussion of Earth Day activities. Discussion of Earth Day activities and 250th celebration included ideas such as distributing seedlings and creating a Miyawaki forest. Mark showed images of laser-cut wooden leaves with a QR code advertising the tiny tree program, to help identify and promote trees planted through this program. Barbara will schedule a meeting (Rachel, Mark also interested) to try to get this off the ground. It was agreed that the QR code should link to an official Tree Committee web page. Other business: a. Charlie asked that the committee consider endorsing Article 37 at our April meeting. b. Gerry reported that the Planning Board voted unanimously to support Articles 34, 35 and 36. c. It was noted that among Select Board goals for 2024 was a strong tree canopy. d. Mark reported on the Bylaw Enforcement Working Group. There is unanimity on the Tree Protec?on Plan recommenda?ons. Some are now working on a permi?ng work ﬂow to analyze steps and iden?fy where there are hitches; there is not yet agreement on how to handle updates Le?er from Tree Comm. Re Ar?cle 33 The Tree Commi?ee strongly supports the passage of Ar?cle 33. We have considered the dilemma inherent in the Ar?cle. The beneﬁts of trees must always be weighed in the context of our need for built spaces and shelter. There are many mature and immature trees living on the Lowell Street parcel, providing the usual beneﬁts. By Town Mee?ng vote in 1978, this land can only be used for conserva?on, recrea?on, or housing. Conserva?on and Recrea?on have been consulted, do not favor the land for their purposes, and both unanimously support aﬀordable housing on this parcel. There is a dras?c shortage of low and middle income housing in our town, our region and our Commonwealth, and we can either respond to the need—or not. In NOT passing Ar?cle 33, we are ignoring a need, right here in Lexington: the need people have for shelter. Lexington regularly sees proper?es denuded of trees in order to build a large house for a single family. The Lowell Street property oﬀers us a chance to house a number of families of modest means, while s?ll preserving sizable tree canopy on its wetlands. The Tree Commi?ee plans to advocate, as we always do, for the preserva?on and plan?ng of na?ve trees on this new site. The selec?on of developer and the shepherding of the proposal through the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board will be a public process in which we, the Tree Commi?ee, plan to have a strong voice. All residents can do the same. It is in everyone’s interest to have the Lowell St. property become a tasteful, ecologically rich dwelling place. With these goals and possibili?es in mind, the Tree Commi?ee unanimously urges the passage of Ar?cle 33. Mark Connor and Patricia Moyer Co-Chairs, Lexington Tree Commi?ee Hazard Trees Removed 2024 Address Tree Comments Month Removed 8 Henderson rd Beech 14” DBH Tree has previously lost its top. January Loose and cracked bark as well as signs of beech bark disease. 6 Tewksbury rd Norway Maple 34” DBH. Tree has severely restricted January root area. The center upright has a cavity with signs of rot/decay; excessive end weight leaning over the house. Live crown ratio has been declining. 11 Revere st Sugar Maple 39” DBH. Tree has a history of previous January failures. Loose and cracked bark as well as the present of cavities throughout the trunk. Tree is severely asymmetrical with excessive end weight on residential side. 12 Coolidge ave. Norway Maple 38 ½” DBH. Tree has a history of January previous failures. Severe amount of rot/ decay in truck. Probe went entirely through the trunk. Wound wood development can be classified as poor/ non-existent. 24 Coolidge ave Norway Maple 38 ½” DBH. Tree has a history of January previous failures. Loose and cracked bark on center scaffolds. 3’ long cavity in trunk, as well as a present of mushrooms. 3 Peartree drive Sugar Maple 24” DBH. Tree has a history of previous February failures. Sever amount of rot/decay in trunk; with significant end weight over the house. 1 Emerson Garden Way Norway Maple 15” DBH. Tree has no live branches only February (Building 12) epicormic sprouts. History of previous failures. Severe amount of rot/decay in center scaffold.