Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears concerns about tree code, appeals and homeowner impacts
Summary
Staff reviewed the city’s tree code amendments and members of the public raised concerns about denied private‑tree removal permits, sewer line intrusion, driveway damage and the appeals process; staff said the code emphasizes preservation of mature canopy, includes mitigation fees and provides an appeals path to the city manager.
City staff briefed the Milwaukee City Council on July 17 on the city’s residential and public tree code and received public comment and council questions about how the rules affect homeowners who face infrastructure damage and safety risks.
Katie Guevara, presenting the iterative tree-code work, told council the code treats trees as infrastructure and aims to preserve mature canopy, require mitigation when removals are approved and direct mitigation funds toward low‑canopy neighborhoods. The code, she said, establishes permit thresholds by tree size and activity, requires preservation plans for development, and offers a tiered fee schedule and mitigation options that include on‑site replanting or fee‑in‑lieu payments.
During public comment Tracy Wald, a resident, said a mature tree in her front yard is damaging her driveway and sewer lateral, leaning toward the house and was denied removal under the code. "I want that removed," Wald said, adding she had planted four evergreens six months earlier to replace the tree and that the roots were undermining concrete and invading the sewer. She said she cannot afford the city's mitigation fees.
Staff explained the code includes a Type A (waived fee) permit for dead, dying or hazardous trees and for certain infrastructure impacts, but that the standard for "unmitigable" damage requires documentation that the infrastructure cannot be repaired without removing the tree. Public Works Director Peter Pasquale told council the city often recommends less‑invasive repairs (for example, lining a sewer lateral) so a tree can be retained; he said older clay sewer laterals commonly fail at joints and roots exploit defects rather than causing those defects.
Council members pressed staff on appeals and clarity. Guevara described an appeal process added in the 2025 update: an applicant submits evidence including an arborist report; the city manager reviews the permit determination and appeal and issues a final decision. City Manager's office staff said they had received few appeals to date and reminded council their review relies on arborist reports and consistent application of the code.
Council discussion emphasized competing goals: the city’s adopted canopy targets and climate and equity goals versus homeowner safety, maintenance costs and affordable housing feasibility. Several council members asked staff to return in the fall with clarifications on the "reasonableness" standard used to determine whether infrastructure impacts can be mitigated without tree removal and to provide clarity on communications and the appeal information that is sent with permit decisions.
