MEETING MINUTES
January 11, 2005
Attendees: Faith Klareich, Carl Henn, Gerald Leighton, Geoff Sanders, Jaskaran Singh, Jim Wasilak, Nate Wall
Absent: Alicia Hosmer and Tolulope Odunlami
Also in attendance: Susan Nolde (City Forester), Burt Hall (Director of Recreation & Parks), Steve Mader (Superintendent of Parks & Facilities), Chip Boylan (Recreation & Parks Advisory Board), Bill Hickman (College Gardens resident), Paul O’Brien (College Gardens resident), Bob DeGroot (Woodley Gardens resident)
Agenda:
1. Welcome, News and Agenda Review
2. Review and Approval of 12/14 Meeting Minutes
Minutes from 12/14/04 approved.
3. Tree Maintenance in City Forest Preserves
a) Presentation by City Staff
Steve Mader introduced the forest preserve system, stating that the 12 designated preserves ranged in size from 2-105 acres, with a total acreage of about 200. The 1st eight preserves were designated in 1997, and the next four designated in 1999. Parkland is all zoned R-90, so forest preserves were created as an additional means of protection. These forest preserves are regulated just like other parks: they require tree maintenance/removal, have storm and sanitary sewers, power lines, etc running through them in some cases, require invasive plant removal, litter/stream cleanups, trail maintenance, etc.
Susan Nolde mentioned that these areas are not “wilderness” per se – they are to some extent already impacted by utilities, and are surrounded on all sides by an urban/suburban landscape. She then explained the tree hazard rating system, with points assigned for potential for tree failure, size of affected part, and a target rating based on the usage in that area. This is the rating system as used by the International Society of Arborists, and is in fairly common use. Susan then mentioned how other agencies, such as the National Park Service, National Forest Service, M-NCPPC, and others handle the issue of tree maintenance.
Burt Hall mentioned the regulations currently in place for City parks and forest preserves. He talked about the “invitation” that the City extends to use the parks and forest preserves because of the trail system. He mentioned that there is an “expectation of safety” in urban/suburban forested areas because of this invitation, and thus the City has a duty to maintain them for user safety. Burt also mentioned the liability issues if a policy was adopted where known hazards are ignored because they were in a “natural area” – not knowing of the existence of hazards is one thing, but not acting on known hazards, regardless of their location, is negligence.
b) Commission Q&A period
An approximate 15-minute question and answer period followed, with Commissioners asking questions or clarifying statements made by the City Parks representatives during their presentation.
c) Public Discussion period
Bill Hickman presented his experience with the removal of trees in the Upper Watts Branch Forest Preserve. Because of the low visitation rate to these preserves, the possibility of someone being beneath a tree when it fell over is incredibly small. Bill thought that by designation as a forest preserve, people should be responsible for their own safety and tree removal activities should not be allowed. He said he was shocked to walk into the forest preserve to find that several trees, many of which he claimed leaned away from the trails and did not pose a threat to visitors using the trails, had been removed without any prior notification by the City.
Paul O’Brien and Bob DeGroot made similar statements about the minimal priority that tree removal in forest preserves should be given. Bob stated that possibly more useful that removing trees is enforcing other regulations of what can and cannot happen inside forest preserves (such as the creation of illegal trails, dumping, etc.) Paul O’Brien mentioned that in many of the documents cited by the Parks Department (the policies of the National Park Service, National Forest Service, etc.) that their tree removal policies appeared to refer to picnic areas and “formal trails”. Paul took issue with whether the trails in the forest preserve areas would be considered “formal”, and subject to those policies. He also mentioned that the choice by the City to use a Bobcat to assist in the removal of the trees had caused significant damage in and of itself, widening the trails and destroying vegetation.
Chip Boylan, representing the Parks Advisory Board, mentioned that they had already heard the City’s presentation of procedures at their previous meeting, and supported them. In reference to the tree removal incident in Upper Watts Branch Forest Preserve, he stated that they were “frankly under-whelmed” by the removal of twelve hazardous trees compared to the number of healthy trees in the ~ 80 acre forest preserve.
4. Discussion of the Tree Maintenance Position Paper
Because of time constraints, discussion of tree maintenance in forest preserves between Commissioners was tabled. It was suggested that to respond to this issue in a timely fashion, an interim meeting should be called to address this single issue. Nate Wall to send out an email proposing possible dates for this meeting, to take place before the next scheduled meeting on February 8th.
5. Discussion of Position Paper Procedures
Faith Klareich mentioned that there have been several draft position papers sent out for Commissioners interest recently, and perhaps we need a sub-committee to handle these. This sub-committee could determine how we prioritize issues so that we handle material that is timely, time-sensitive, etc. This will be discussed more fully at the February 8th meeting.
6. Discussion of Sustainability Commission Liaison Strategy
This discussion was tabled until the February 8th meeting.
7. Staff Update
a) Commission Vacancy Recruitment
EC vacancies have been posted in Rockville Reports and on the City’s website.
b) Update on College Gardens Low Impact Development Study
Nate Wall indicated that the consultant’s draft report had been submitted, and was going to be presented to the College Gardens citizens at a public meeting on January 18th at the Senior Center.
c) Liaison With Other Boards and Commissions
Nate Wall had prepared a packet of information on each of the Boards & Commissions that the EC had previously indicated were possibilities for possible sustainability outreach. Jerry Leighton to review packet to determine where the EC should target their outreach.
d) Zoning Ordinance/Code Update
No additional progress has been made – still require temporary employees to begin the process.
e) Update on Noise Study
The consultant’s draft report is near complete. Once submitted, a joint sub-committee between the Traffic & Transportation Commission and the EC will form to assist in the recommendations for further action to be made to the Mayor & Council at the March 7th meeting. Jerry and Carl expressed interest in serving on this sub-committee.
f) SWM Fee study task force
Jerry Leighton indicated interest in serving on this task force, to be created by DPW after awarding a consulting contract for the study.
g) Rock Creek Watershed Group
Nate Wall informed the EC that a watershed group for Rock Creek had recently formed, and was starting to hold meetings. Nate will keep the EC informed of any activities that may directly relate to Rockville.
8. Wrap-up and Adjourn
**Preparer’s Note: Most of the hand-written notes from this meeting were lost, and much of the above minutes were prepared from memory two weeks after the fact.
