Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances second reading of tree, weeds and grass ordinance after committee debate on limb clearance and utility wires
Summary
Barberton’s public welfare committee reviewed proposed amendments to BCO Chapter 670 (trees, weeds and grass). Council members raised technical questions about limb‑height standards near utility wires and said additional edits and legal review are pending; the measure completed a second reading on Sept. 8 and will return for a final vote.
Barberton’s public welfare and safety committee discussed proposed revisions to the city’s nuisance vegetation code — BCO Chapter 670 — on Sept. 8, focusing on technical standards for tree limbs and clearances near utility lines.
The committee listed the measure (identified in committee as Ordinance 95-2025) and discussed a revised draft circulated in late August. Committee members asked staff and the law director to resolve conflicting language about minimum required clearance between tree limbs and overhead wires. “So we're looking at the wires are required to be over a certain height, but yet we're going a lot of tree limbs to be lower than the wires that so I… I just think it's some of it's just little word in it,” Councilman Griffin said during the committee session. Councilman Harris said the draft has been “run one time” and will be reread before the third and final reading.
Why it matters: The amendment adds three new sections establishing nuisance definitions, abatement procedures and assessment of abatement costs by the municipality. Council members emphasized that precise technical language matters because conflicting height references could create enforcement confusion and potential liability for the city.
Procedural status: The amendments completed a second reading at the Sept. 8 legislative meeting; committee chairs and the law director said additional edits will be submitted before the third reading. No final adoption was recorded Sept. 8.
Discussion vs. decision: The committee debated text edits and sought legal review. Council did not take final action to adopt the ordinance at the Sept. 8 legislative meeting; the measure was scheduled for a further reading.
Ending: Council members asked staff to accept suggested edits and circulate a corrected draft to committee members before the next legislative session so the ordinance can proceed to a final vote.
