Roselle trustees direct staff to revise tree-preservation ordinance; board favors fee-in-lieu and an 80% same-species limit

The Village Board of Roselle on April 14 discussed amendments to the landscape section of the zoning ordinance that would create a clarified tree-preservation process, and directed staff to return with revised ordinance language reflecting board preferences.

Community Development Manager Karen Briggs presented the draft changes, saying the draft reflects direction from an earlier November discussion and that most language will be finalized with the village attorney. Briggs identified one outstanding item: section f(3), which would impose a fine when a tree designated for preservation is damaged, destroyed or removed. Staff recommended that the fine be at least equal to the ordinance's fee-in-lieu amount so property owners would not be incentivized to circumvent protections. Briggs also noted that typical municipal citations in Roselle carry a $35 minimum, which would not create a meaningful deterrent.

Trustees discussed two specific points. Trustee Betsy Perkowski said the draft's same-species percentage appeared reversed and recommended changing the rule so that, for small groups of trees, the limit would effectively allow four of the same species but prevent a full stand of a single species — the board settled on an 80% threshold in section f(5)(d). Perkowski also proposed the penalty be the fee-in-lieu plus a nominal amount (she suggested $35–$50). Trustee Trejo and others said they preferred keeping the remedy equal to the fee-in-lieu only, arguing accidental damage during construction should not carry an extra penalty beyond replacement cost.

Briggs clarified when the tree-preservation rules would apply: the proposed ordinance applies to properties undergoing site-plan review, new commercial or industrial build-outs or other actions that trigger planning-and-zoning review. Briggs and trustees agreed that ordinary landscaping or homeowner-initiated tree removal unrelated to a site plan would not require permission under the new section.

Following discussion the board gave staff direction to revise the draft ordinance to (1) change the same-species threshold to 80% in section f(5)(d) and (2) keep the penalty set at the fee-in-lieu amount rather than adding an additional fine. The item will return to the board for formal consideration with attorney-reviewed language.

Trustees commented that the revised draft improves readability compared with approaches used by other communities and thanked staff for the work; no formal vote was taken on the ordinance at this meeting and the matter will return for future consideration.

Quotes in context from the meeting (verbatim): "Staff recommends a fine of at least an amount of an amount at least equal to the fee in lieu price." — Karen Briggs, Community Development Manager. "I think the fee in lieu is fine with me. I feel like if someone accidentally does something, it's not really like willful." — Trustee Trejo. "I think we should have it set so it'd be the cost of the fee in lieu and then an additional $35 or $50 on top of that." — Trustee Betsy Perkowski.

The board asked staff to return a final draft with the agreed edits and with the village attorney's refinements before a future ordinance vote.