Sarah Higginbotham lives in one of two neighborhood conservation districts in Lexington. The protections that houses get from being within keep them smaller, more affordable, and more cohesive than other parts of town, where demolition and reconstruction are easier.
“So in my little neighborhood, I don’t think a lot is going to change because we are still a pretty leafy area,” she said.
But living in a town that now averages 75 to 80 teardowns of older homes each year — which often means trees on the property come down, too — Higginbotham showed up at Wednesday night’s Town Meeting to support new tree protections proposed in Articles 34, 35, and 37.
Members approved three updates to the Town’s general tree bylaws and adopted a resolution on the importance of trees, declaring that “a robust tree canopy is vital to the quality of life, public health, and sustainability of Lexington and its residents, workers, and visitors.” The new amendments require a tree protection plan during development, mandate replanting in front of newly-developed properties, and create a “rigorous” standard for trees deemed hazardous or exempt from the bylaw.
The Tree Committee and the Department of Public Works proposed these changes to address concerns about the efficacy of the existing bylaw, which requires homeowners and developers to log the trees they plan to cut down as part of the building or demolition permitting process and either replant or pay mitigation fees for certain removals. Advocates allege that, in the past, developers could find ways around the rules, and that the town hasn’t always adequately enforced them.
When asked if she noticed a decline in neighborhood tree canopy during her 17 years living in Lexington, Higginbotham couldn’t respond quickly enough: “Definitely.”
“When you watch a tiny house surrounded by trees be demolished and then you see a huge house built right up to the setback and no trees are able to be in that lot, it is just sad,” she said.
Nancy Sofen, a member of the Tree Committee, and Daniel Miller, an advocate for Lexington’s trees, fielded questions from members about the changes. Off the bat, Sofen mentioned that one of the biggest problems the new changes are meant to address is simply poor compliance. “Some just don’t follow the bylaw,” she said Wednesday night.
Article 34, which passed 146 to 12, will now require a certified arborist to create a tree protection plan for protected trees on properties undergoing construction.
Developers sometimes decide to leave trees standing, but if not cared for correctly during construction, they don’t have a good chance of surviving, explained Dave Pinsonneault, the Director of Public Works. “We’re not there on site 24/7/365, this article will have a definitive plan of what needs to be done, codify that and make it easier to administer as we move forward,” Pinsonneault said.
A certified protection plan must now be submitted with the plot plan for protected trees and the arborist must then notify the town that protections were installed before site work begins. If a protected tree dies within a year of construction, mitigation in the form of either replanting or paying into the tree fund will apply as if the tree had been removed.
Article 35 aims to increase the streetfront canopy throughout the Town. While Lexington has a larger concentration of trees than Cambridge for example, Lexington’s trees are mostly in conservation lands and big backyards, Miller explained. Showing an example on the screen, Miller pointed out Cambridge’s much greater streetfront canopy.
There are generally about 70-85 major residential construction projects in Lexington each year. Even when trees are replanted, they are rarely placed in the front of the property, where they provide shade to passers by. The amendment would require individual properties under development to plant trees in front of the property to mitigate for any protected trees removed from the property, if possible.
“Public shade is about neighborhoods too,” Miller said.
Tree replanting is already required in new subdivisions, but this change targets individual homeowners as well. Pinnsoneault says that the current bylaw change “doesn’t say you have to plant the tree.” Developers can still pay into the mitigation fund if they don’t want to replant, but Article 35 requires replanting in front when possible, to benefit the whole community.
“It’s really to try to get trees back into the landscape rather than just paying into the mitigation fund,” he said.
Article 36 exempts hazardous or invasive trees that pose a threat and clearly warrant eradication, with written recommendation from the Tree Warden. According to Sofren, the bylaw as it works now does not set a standard for what degree of hazard qualifies for exemption from fees and mitigation.
Another motivation for this article, Sofen says, is the Tree of Heaven, or Ailanthus Altissima: a rapid growth tree that prohibits the growth of other plants and is the favored host of the invasive spotted lanternfly, which are creeping closer and closer to Lexington, with sightings in Waltham and Cambridge.
Those unsure of the new changes largely worried that they might create undue financial burdens on homeowners, developers, and taxpayers.
“I think we’re putting more of the burden on the homeowner,” said Precinct 6 member Dawn McKenna.
Precinct 9 member Thomas Fenn argued that stricter tree regulations could make Lexington less attractive to developers. “I am not against trees,” Fenn said. “Lexington is an extremely expensive town to live in, and the way we get the money is through the property taxes from development. It makes it harder to build a new high school,” if we have less development, he said.
Because of the new responsibilities the changes bring to the DPW and the Tree Warden, the Town plans to hire an Assistant Superintendent for Public Grounds – which will have a salary of $83,895 – to ensure the bylaw is correctly administered. A few worried about the financial repercussions of hiring for this position, and the costs of the newly-required arborist, which will be paid by the developer.
Sofren has discussed the changes with officials from towns like Cambridge and Wellesley that have already implemented similar protection plans.
“There is no shortage of arborists and this process goes very smoothly,” she said.
For developers who might care more about their bottom line than beautiful trees, Pinsonneault told LexObserver that the new rules might make replanting more cost effective.
“It’s kind of forced them to hire a certified arborist,” said Pinsonneault. “From their perspective, I could see that it is an added cost. You know, if they plant from the approved list and get trees on the site, it could end up that the cost could be less than if they did full mitigation.”
Nearing the end of the meeting, a duo of 8th graders from Diamond Middle School took to the mic to express support of the changes. Ayushi Hande spoke of the importance of protecting trees during a time of rapid development.
“Yes, you would be able to build larger, but you wouldn’t be able to see the beautiful trees our earth has provided us with.”
Unfortunately, tree removal is sometimes necessary. Forty years ago, we moved into a beech forest in Lexington. Over the years, many of these beautiful trees had reached the end of their long lives. Most of the remaining trees were infected with leaf mold disease and threatening to fall our house or on our neighbor’s homes.
I have read with keen interest you article on protecting the trees within the town of Lexington. I, however think that you are on the right track, but the train has left the station. You have a huge problem pending an it’s not saving a few trees at a time. I refer you to the proposed solar farm and the developers intent to cut down at least 1040 mature trees to satisfy his needs as to implementing this project. Tracer Lane, ie Harold Nahigian has been before the planning board several times with his plans, Your planning board, with the exception. of Mr. Creech, folded like a cheap deck of cards and approved this venture. They could have said no . Instead they placed 57 conditions on the developer and brought about the inevitable pending lawsuits. They disregarded your tree warden, tree committee, conservation dept. who all stood in opposition to cutting down a virtual forest . Instead the board gave them a waiver and basically their blessing to go ahead. Someone should ask WHY???? The only person to benefit is the developer. Should he prevail in court, you can kiss those trees goodbye. Your intentions to protect trees is admirable. Your 3 articles, show a recognition of the problem. Take a look back at the actions of your planning board, and incorporate their failings to protect 1040 trees into meaningful ideas and bylaws with teeth for enforcement so that even a tree has rights.
I’m writing in response to your recent excellent and informative article discussing the Tree Committee, impending changes and the mission before them. I’d also like to applaud the dedicated members of the Tree Committee for their work and focus.
I’ve usually found the town of Lexington to be very forward thinking in addressing environmental issues. I am however perplexed with how the citizens and management of Lexington support their committees and activists. I’d think Lexington would value the dedication and input of committees such as the Tree Committee. That does not seem to be the case! I refer specifically to the 0 Cambridge Street / Concord Turnpike Tracer Lane Solar Project. In December 12, 2022 the Tree Committee wrote to the Planning Board opposing the possibilities of granting a tree inventory waiver to the Solar Project developer. That was when the committee believed the number of trees to be removed was 795 and should be subject to all the documented Town’s tree bylaws. The Tree Committee in a separate paragraph within the same memo asked the Planning board to deny the project totally due to the significant impact to public health that would result from the removal of these 795 trees. At that point in time, I did not see a formal response by the Planning Board to either of the Tree Committee’s requests. Later as the project review and approval process continued the Lexington Planning Board in March 2023 documented they were granting the waiver of tree inventory of trees 6” DBH or greater with the exception of the minimal number of protected trees in the setback area. The developer claimed having to inventory the large number of trees was “cost prohibited to the project”. You need to understand the inventory requirement is only for large trees 6 DBH or greater (6-inch diameter at breast height). The number of trees smaller than 6 DBH can be ignored. Lexington’s Planning Board stated identifying the size and species of interior lot trees could be considered an unreasonably burdensome requirement in this instance under MGL c.40A§3, which prohibits unreasonably regulating the installation of solar energy systems. The Planning board applied their own interpretation of MGL. I’m confident the MGL was not written to disregard existing town bylaws, but that is exactly what the Planning Board did. They also ignored Lexington’s Tree Committee’s recommendations.
In April 2023 the Planning Board provided an updated document of revisions and changes to the project. Now the developer’s projection was to clear and remove 1,040 trees ! Do you understand this? The developer is granted a waiver on providing a tree inventory and now has increased the number of trees they wish to remove! What does the Planning Board do? They let the waiver stand, but say again the developer needs to inventory ONLY the protected trees in the setback area. The Planning Board wants the set back area to meet the required zoning of 50 feet. What does the developer do – he now contests the setback area and states it is only a 15-foot requirement. So, the developer states there are only 12 protected trees in this area. Stop and think about this. The developer plans to cutdown 1,040 trees, wants to establish their own setback area, says thanks for the waiver and now only has to inventory 12 trees from the total of 1,040. That’s approximately 1%. What is so special about this developer that he gets all these favorable decisions from the Planning Board?
The story does not end there. On May 11, 2023 the Tree Committee again writes to the Planning Board. In that memo the committee articulates “Tree Bylaw states that the Planning Board may, by including in their findings an explanation of the reasons, waiver in part or in full this bylaw for sites under their jurisdiction when they deem it necessary for the good of the community”. Further in that memo the Tree Committee states there is no identified community benefit by granting this waiver. “Such a waiver serves the convenience of the applicant rather than good of the community, and is a privilege not granted to others whose projects are subject to the Tree Bylaw”. Now in fairness I must mention the Tree Committee did agree with some of the conditions the Planning Board put on the developer, but to put this in context you need to realize the Tree Committee’s input and bylaws were circumvented initially. So, what you have is a project that shouldn’t be approved and is ignoring pertinent input and existing bylaws, but has some minor conditional language included regarding trees.
On May 17, 2023 the project was approved by the Lexington Planning Board with 4 Aye votes and one Nay vote. The one nay vote was from Bob Creech. This is how Bob simply summed it up: Tracer Lane is “a bad idea,” he said, “with too many negatives and no positives.”
So, the developer gets his project approved, gets his requested waiver, but then is upset with some conditions the Lexington Planning Board puts on his project. So, he pursues legal action against Lexington! And now the project is in court. In addition, the City of Cambridge plus a group of concerned citizens and the City of Waltham are each pursuing legal action against Lexington. So, the Lexington Planning Board now must spend legal fees and defend itself against four different plaintiff groups. Do you think maybe this specific project is a ”bad idea”? It’s all worth reading about.
I opened this letter/comment stating it was regarding the Tree Committee. I could also write about the interaction the Planning Board had with the Conservation Committee. The Planning Board was more respectful to the Conservation Committee’s input, but that’s another long story for another day and to see if specified conditions are actually adhered to .
In closing I can only advise the concerned citizens of Lexington to look into the conduct of the Planning Board and what and how they are approving projects. This Solar Project benefits one person the developer! There is no community benefit. In looking at the notes, meetings and Zoom calls I can’t recall one input stating this project is a wonderful idea and safe. There is however much discussion about risks, safety and health impacts of the project. I can only wish the Tree Committee luck and better success in the future with the planned new articles and hiring the Assistant Superintendent for Public Grounds. Hopefully their educated and dedicated input will be given the respect it deserves. If by any chance the Tracer Lane Solar Project comes back before the Planning Board the board should be encouraged to correct their previous actions and act appropriately and respectfully going forward.
Kudos to you Mr. Sullivan. Your lengthy but highly accurate explanation of the pitfalls regarding tree policies within the town of Lexington should be a wakeup call to every citizen. You correctly point out that, pardon the pun, something shady is going on with the actions taken on behalf of one single developer by the Planning Board. It is as if they feel in spite of overwhelming opposition by the Tree Committee, Tree Warden, and Conservation Board, they should grant waivers allowing this project to proceed. What makes this developer special? Can all future applicants expect the same outcome when they wish to clear cut a vast area of forest ? If that be the case, you would be wasting your efforts only to see your Planning Board disregard your input. I would certainly hope that you get answers to tree policies as relates to future actions your Planning Board might entertain. Your intentions are noble. Your 3 articles are a start towards protecting the trees, but the underlying circumstances as outlined by Mr. Sullivan have to be addressed. Articles without a mechanism to enforce them and prevent their implantation are what you have now. Before proceeding forward you must reconcile the problems of the past. Correcting the obvious shortcomings and putting the proper teeth into future bylaws is the only way to save your trees. Best of luck in your endeavours, and I sincerely hope you prevail in the end.