Tenafly council debates tree-ordinance relief, mitigation ratios and landmark designation process

Tenafly mayor and councilors spent an extended portion of their March 4 meeting discussing the borough’s tree ordinance, including whether homeowners who cannot physically replant required mitigation trees should have a clearer appeals path and how landmark tree designation is initiated.

The discussion began after councilors said residents reported being unable to plant the number of replacement trees required under the ordinance because their lot footprints are too small. Staff explained the ordinance calculates mitigation to “replace what you’ve taken away,” and if a property cannot accommodate the required replacements the owner may forfeit the mitigation payment into the borough’s Shade Tree Fund. A council member identified as Julie (speaker) said the fund has been used for townwide plantings, including “about 100 trees in the Nature Center,” and described the fund as an established mitigation mechanism.

Council members pressed staff on appeals and landmarking. Several councilors said an appeal pathway exists for some hardship determinations but that a specific appeal process for disputes over mitigation calculations was not obvious to residents. One councilor asked staff to confirm that the code allows a party to appeal a zoning officer’s determination to the governing body; another said the mitigation appeal process is present elsewhere in the code and that staff should communicate that option to residents.

On mitigation ratios, staff reviewed the ordinance’s caliper-based replacement schedule: a removed 1–12-inch caliper tree requires one replacement, 12–16 inches still one, 16–18 inches two, 18–24 inches three, 24–30 inches four, and trees over 30-inch caliper trigger five replacements plus two additional trees for every additional five inches of diameter. Council members noted this can make replacement impractical on smaller lots when a single large, old-growth tree requires multiple new plantings.

Landmark designation prompted separate debate: under the current ordinance, residents must nominate a tree and contact DPW for consideration; staff said property-owners must be involved and may object, so an owner-driven nomination process can limit proactive landmarking. Council members described the public benefit of protecting old-growth trees (reducing erosion, providing canopy, environmental benefits) and asked staff to prepare options for allowing landmark designation where the borough identifies qualifying trees, subject to property-owner input and legal limits on restricting private-property rights.

Council members repeatedly framed their comments around enforceability and fairness: councilors said the ordinance’s goal is to preserve tree canopy while acknowledging that small lots and large preexisting trees create mitigation challenges. They asked staff to propose changes that would (a) clarify appeal procedures for mitigation disputes, (b) consider alternatives for small lots, and (c) evaluate whether landmarking can be done more proactively while preserving property‑owner rights.

Ending: Councilors directed staff to provide options and alternatives for future meetings; staff and councilors noted the borough will continue using the Shade Tree Fund to plant trees at public sites, including the Nature Center and along public rights-of-way.