Kingston staff outline proposed tree preservation ordinance with 6-inch threshold and tree-value fines

The Kingston Common Council’s Laws and Rules Committee spent the bulk of its March 19 meeting on a proposed tree preservation ordinance that, as drafted by the city’s urban forester, would protect public trees and many private trees with trunks 6 inches or greater and replace flat fines with a formula-based tree value when protected trees are removed.

Brent, the city’s urban forester, told the committee the ordinance would designate protected trees on public property and private trees with trunks measuring 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH; the standard measure at 4.5 feet). He described a replacement-value formula that calculates the monetary equivalent by considering nursery cost, tree size and condition rather than applying a single flat fine.

“Trees are one of the few things that urban environments can have as an asset that appreciates over time,” Brent said during his presentation, using a city photo to illustrate tree canopy benefits.

Brent gave an example intended to show how the formula works: a recently planted street tree costs roughly $1,000 to buy and install; an exceptionally large, healthy specimen might represent roughly $10,000 by the formula’s measure. The formula also reduces assessed value proportionally for trees in decline; Brent said a tree that is 75 percent dead would have about one-quarter of the replacement value.

The proposed ordinance defines several practical tools for development projects. It would require tree protection zones (commonly the tree’s drip line) be fenced during construction to prevent soil compaction and root damage; where protected trees must be removed, the ordinance would require replacement plantings or payment of the tree’s value into a city fund used to plant elsewhere. Brent said exceptions would apply for invasive or low-quality species and that the ordinance’s rules are designed to avoid charging homeowners for removing small volunteer or invasive “weed trees.”

Staff told the committee the permit application for homeowners to remove a protected tree would carry no application fee; homeowners could replace the removed tree(s) with smaller trees from the city’s approved species list as a non-monetary mitigation. If the owner chooses not to replace trees, payment to the city’s tree fund would be an option. Brent said jointly owned boundary trees would require agreement between the adjacent owners in order to proceed under the permit process.

The draft also includes hazard-tree language to allow property owners to remove trees that pose imminent risk without bureaucratic delay; the urban forester said he and his staff are certified to perform post-removal documentation and risk assessments when needed.

Committee members raised sidewalk conflict issues and asked how the ordinance interacts with a separate sidewalk feasibility study; Brent said many sidewalk/tree conflicts require multi-department, site-specific solutions, from root pruning to alternative paving materials, and that the ordinance centers on preserving trees where practicable while allowing hazard removals and replacement strategies.

On financing and staffing, staff referenced two external funding sources discussed earlier in the meeting: a USDA subaward managed by American Forests that funds the urban forester position and a NYSDEC award for plantings and removals (the DEC award was described as roughly $740,000 with a pending contract). Staff said some planting and removal work could be covered by these grants; they also described a plan to use any collected tree-value funds to plant in parts of the city with low canopy cover.

Brent and other staff told the committee they would run a public outreach campaign if the ordinance is adopted — including targeted mailings, web maps showing upcoming removals and plantings, on-tree signage 30 days before public removals, and an online permit and map portal — and they recommended an effective date that would allow those education efforts before enforcement.

Ending: Staff asked the committee to continue discussion and suggested a phased rollout and public education campaign; no formal vote on the ordinance occurred at the March 19 meeting.