Residents urge borough to halt removal of Oakleaf Lane trees; Settlers Walk roads petition raised at public comment

Residents and neighborhood leaders pressed Franklin Park Borough Council on April 16 to reconsider enforcement action that could remove 14 blue spruce trees planted along Oakleaf Lane, arguing the trees have been maintained for decades and provide aesthetic and noise-buffering benefits.

The tree removal order stems from a borough investigation after a complaint that a speed limit sign was blocked, the borough said during the meeting. Borough staff told attendees the trees were planted in the road right of way and that, once a violation is identified, the borough must act.

Mark Jennings, a resident of Oakleaf Lane, said the trees have been maintained by neighborhood groups for 33 years and voiced concern about environmental and community impact. "We're here to address the removal of the trees at the entrance of Oakleaf Lane and in Franklin Park Borough at the intersection of Rees Run Road," Jennings said.

Neighbors described the trees as established landscaping that provides separation and reduces road noise. Bill Kegel, who said he was the first home built on that section of Oakleaf Lane, said the line of trees has been part of the neighborhood’s appearance since 1991. "These trees have provided an excellent barrier and excellent landscaping for our property," Kegel said.

Neil O'Keefe, identified as president of Franklin Ridge homeowners association, said residents want a solution that avoids removal. "We spend over $30,000 a year maintaining the landscape," O'Keefe told council. He and other speakers said the community is willing to indemnify the borough or grant easements to preserve maintenance responsibilities.

Speakers cited technical details discussed with borough or utility staff: residents said a water line reported to lie 4 feet below grade is actually 6 feet below grade after accounting for a two-foot mounting, and that the root depth of blue spruce would not threaten the line. Jennings reported an estimate of about $50,000 to replace the landscaping and decorative wall if the trees are removed.

During the public comments, a borough official (not named in the record) replied that an investigation began after a complaint about the speed limit sign and that finding trees planted in the right of way compelled follow-up action. "We received a complaint that the speed limit sign was being blocked," the official said. "Once we looked at it, we saw that the trees were planted in the road right of way, which is a violation."

Separately under public comment, life scout Bryce Miller of North Shevlin Court asked council about road repairs in Settlers Walk, naming Holmes Drive, Pioneer Drive and Colonial Drive and saying a petition of more than 170 residents requested work. "There are 3 major roads in Settlers Walk that have... lots of cracks... over 170 people have come to address this issue," Miller said. Council members said crack sealing and repairs are scheduled during the warmer months and that the roads in Settlers Walk were not scheduled for repaving this year but would receive crack sealing.

The meeting record does not show council action to change the borough enforcement position on the tree violation; the public comment period concluded with thanks from council members to residents who spoke.

The issues raised — right-of-way planting, the borough's enforcement duty after a complaint, and residents' offers to indemnify or grant easements — remain unresolved in the meeting record. Residents said they will continue to seek a negotiated solution and pressed for clarity about timelines referenced in an April 10 borough letter that, according to speakers, delayed removal for six months while alternatives were explored.

Council did not adopt policy changes or direct staff to delay enforcement during the meeting; rather, the public comment period recorded residents' statements and the borough's explanation of its obligation to address right-of-way violations.

Ending

Speakers asked for continued dialogue and urged the borough to consider alternatives to removing the trees. Council acknowledged the comments and closed public comment before moving on to its agenda.