At a meeting of the Sustainability and Environment Subcommittee of Springfield City, members discussed a draft Urban Woodlands ordinance aimed at regulating large-scale tree removal on private land and preventing developers from clear-cutting heavily wooded parcels before subdivision or redevelopment.

The draft would apply to parcels meeting minimum-size criteria and a canopy threshold and includes exemptions and processes for owner-occupants; committee members and city staff raised concerns about the ordinance's current scale, enforcement demands on city staff, and possible costs for homeowners. Committee Chair Amy opened the discussion, saying, “Just to be clear, we're not here to vote on anything. Right? Like I said, this is a conversation.”

The ordinance text under review uses a 5,000-square-foot lot-size threshold and a removal trigger tied to removal of roughly 25% or more of a parcel's tree canopy; the group heard a staff presentation that the current draft would affect tens of thousands of parcels — the draft authors cited a figure of 37,264 parcels (about 88.7% of parcels) — though members said the underlying parcel-level canopy survey and calculations need independent verification. Councilor Tim Allen summarized a recurring theme of the meeting: balancing new development and environmental protection, calling the work “a balancing act between developers and protecting the environment.”

Concerns and clarifications

Committee members and staff raised several operational and equity questions: who pays for permit reviews and any required canopy surveys; whether the rule would inadvertently place burdens on homeowners who want to remove a small number of trees; how volunteers and existing forestry staff would share enforcement and monitoring duties; and whether available city programs could be used to offset homeowner costs.

City staff and committee members described several specific features in the current draft: a look‑back clause that presumes a parcel's canopy as it existed up to 48 months before an application, an owner-occupant exemption written into a draft waiver (described in the text as an exemption from replanting or payment when fewer than a defined number of trees are removed), and a proposed civil fine (the draft references a $1,000 penalty in one section). Committee members said the draft also includes monitoring language requiring replanted trees to be checked over an establishment period (speakers referenced an 18‑month follow-up requirement), and that the proposed permitting and follow-up regime could require new staff or significant volunteer commission oversight.

Staff capacity, cost and next steps

City staff said enforcing the ordinance in its current form would be labor intensive. One senior staffer said the draft could require at least two new staff positions for ongoing monitoring and enforcement; the administration said it was unlikely to recommend new hires at this moment given broader fiscal uncertainty. Committee members and the administration discussed ways to reduce city costs, including relying on developers to pay for required reports and permits (similar to other conservation- or tree-related permitting processes), using volunteer commissions for permitting review, and seeking grants or partner organizations to conduct a parcel-level canopy survey.

Committee members identified Regreen (referred to in the discussion as a likely partner) and an individual consultant, Dave Blonier (noted to be ill and unavailable at present), as possible partners to complete a GIS-based survey to quantify the ordinance's impact. Committee members estimated a GIS-run parcel-level canopy study could be completed in several weeks to a couple of months once a contract was in place, but that procurement and contracting would add time and cost.

Policy framing and exclusions

Speakers emphasized the committee's stated intent that the ordinance is meant primarily to address large, wooded parcels and developer-driven clear-cutting, not routine homeowner trimming or single-tree removals. The group discussed a negotiable owner-occupant exemption (a draft redlined provision described in the meeting as an exemption for owner-occupants in limited circumstances, tied to removal of fewer than a set number of trees), but several homeowners who spoke in the meeting said the current draft as written could create significant up-front costs for owner-occupants (for example, engineered site plans and consultant fees estimated in the thousands of dollars).

Outcome and immediate directives

No vote was taken. The subcommittee agreed to: (1) commission or procure a parcel-level canopy survey and operational/economic impact analysis (staff and committee members suggested exploring Regreen, academic partners and grant funding); (2) convene a follow-up meeting that includes developers and bankers to gather industry input; and (3) have a smaller working group (committee members, staff and stakeholders) refine the draft ordinance and its legal language before returning to the subcommittee and then to the full council. The chair said she had an “ambitious goal” to place the item on a council agenda July 14 but acknowledged that timing may slip.

The committee framed the next steps as analytic and deliberative: more data on parcel-level canopy coverage, clearer legal language (including explicit public-land and trimming exemptions), and financial analysis of staff and enforcement needs before any council vote.

Ending

Committee members said they would continue to refine the draft, seek external partners for the required survey, and schedule a follow-up meeting (including developer input) before advancing any ordinance to the full City Council. No formal action or vote on the draft ordinance occurred at the meeting.