Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenafly council hears appeals over tree‑bond cost, staff to follow up on code and hardship review
Summary
Residents told the council that the cost to replace trees they removed exceeded the performance bond required by the borough’s tree ordinance, and asked for relief or a review of the mitigation rules.
A Tenafly property owner and residents asked the council on Tuesday to review the borough’s tree‑mitigation bond requirements after they removed two trees and later discovered the mitigation cost to replace the trees would substantially exceed the bond they posted.
A caller identified in the meeting as Annie Lee described removing two trees — one reportedly dying and one removed for house damage — and then learning that replacement trees of the required size and trunk diameter would be expensive. Lee said the bond posted to guarantee mitigation work was $3,600 but that acquiring and planting the required stock could approach $10,000.
Council discussion: Councilmembers and staff reviewed the code language and explained the existing mitigation framework in chapter 26 of the borough code. Staff noted the code allows exemption for dead or dying trees if an arborist’s documentation is supplied. One staff member said the department would accept evidence that a removed tree was dead or dying and that mitigation requirements would be adjusted accordingly.
Former and current DPW staff were referenced during the discussion to explain how the tree‑fund balance and staffing affect the borough’s ability to plant replacement trees. Council members advised that the Shade Tree Trust and the borough’s tree fund should be clarified so residents understand how forfeited bonds are used and how much mitigation the borough can undertake with available funds.
Next steps and staff direction: The council asked staff to follow up with the affected property owner, review the documentation (for example, an arborist’s letter confirming a tree was dead or dying), and return with options. Borough staff said they would contact the property owners and that the borough administrator would email council members with follow‑up information.
No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Some councilmembers expressed opposition to lowering mitigation fees; others asked staff to prepare recommendations that would ease burdens in clearly demonstrable hardship cases while preserving deterrents to clear‑cutting.
Key background: The borough’s tree code requires replacement or mitigation for removed trees and establishes performance bonds and a Shade Tree Trust that receives funds when mitigation is not completed. Council discussion flagged the need for clearer resident communications about the process and for staff to examine whether a targeted amendment — for example, limited hardship exemptions or a multi‑year mitigation schedule — is appropriate.
