Draft zoning shifts tree and landscape rules into zoning code; forester role emphasized

At the June 25 Westmont Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting staff presented proposed Article 10 language that moves several tree‑preservation and landscape standards into the zoning ordinance and clarifies replacement and administrative procedures.

Senior Planner Scott Williams said the draft transfers provisions previously in Chapter 80 (trees and landscaping) into the zoning code “to fit better in the zoning code, especially when talking to developers.” He listed new and revised requirements: a portion of proposed open space must be landscaped, parking‑lot landscaping islands are required for lots larger than 20 spaces, enhanced street‑facing landscaping and visual screening standards are proposed, and staff would have limited administrative authority to permit alternative compliance if the measures use noninvasive species.

Commissioners noted a new planting recommendation list would be included in the draft appendix. Williams said the village forester had provided tree lists and that the draft updates intended to balance environmental protection with Westmont’s smaller lot sizes. "We transferred a lot of the tree preservation tree stuff that the forester had worked really hard to get put in place, and, without trying to go over the top, because Westmont does have a lot of small sites," Williams said.

The commission discussed replacement requirements and the payment‑in‑lieu option. Williams described the existing administrative practice: if a development cannot physically accommodate the required replacement trees because of site constraints, the village may accept payment in lieu and remit funds for planting elsewhere in Westmont. He said a village forester typically determines whether a site can accommodate required replacements. "If the property cannot accommodate the replacement trees, the village may allow payment in lieu," Williams said.

Commissioners also raised questions about homeowner rights and penalties in the separate tree ordinance. Commissioner Lynn asked whether a homeowner could remove trees; staff clarified that the standalone tree ordinance (not the zoning rewrite) contains “heritage tree” protections and penalties. "If you take down a big oak tree ... your option is to plant 40 trees or pay a monetary penalty," a commissioner summarized of prior practice. Staff noted the board can grant waivers in some cases for development projects the board favors.

The draft replaces some measurement units (DBH to caliper) and proposes minor language cleanups and clarifications (for example, removing snow fence as acceptable tree protection in the current text). Williams said staff plans additional edits before returning draft language for the next hearing. No formal action was taken at the June 25 meeting.

Commissioners concluded by asking staff to clarify which landscape requirements apply to which residential forms (detached vs. multiunit) and to bring corrected cross‑references; staff agreed to revise the text for the July 23 continuation.