Committee tables rewrite of tree ordinance after members raise enforcement and private-property concerns

Committee members and the borough’s tree commission representative reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 102 (tree ordinance) on Sept. 9. The draft changes would clarify definitions for condemned or hazardous street trees, grant the borough arborist authority to order emergency removals, require a tree permit to be on-site when work is done, and change compensation rules for removing heritage trees: owners could either plant replacement trees on-site or pay a fee in lieu to fund street-tree planting.

Committee members expressed concern about enforceability and fairness on private property. Questions focused on how heritage trees are identified and registered, how property owners who lack space would be treated, and whether the borough has staff capacity to inventory and notify property owners. One member asked, “So how would you write an ordinance to prevent that? You can't.” Several members said the proposal needed clearer communication, explicit fee amounts or formulas and recognition of legal limits on what the borough may require on private property.

Why it matters: Heritage-tree protections and street-tree planting affect private property owners' obligations and borough tree canopy goals. Members said the intent — preserving canopy — is sound but the draft needs work on administration, notification and fee structure to avoid unintended burdens.

Outcome and next steps: The committee asked staff and the tree commission to rework the draft, include explicit fee-in-lieu amounts or a clear replacement formula, consider enforcement and notification mechanics, and return with a revised proposal. No ordinance change was adopted at the Sept. 9 meeting.