Canton Township planners weigh new acreage thresholds, propose allowing up to four tree removals without permit

Patrick, a planning department staff member, reviewed the final sections of Canton Township’s draft Tree and Woodland Preservation Ordinance and outlined options for allowing property owners to remove a limited number of trees annually without a formal permit.

Why it matters: the township’s current ordinance exempts all occupied parcels under two acres from permit requirements, a design that was raised during a legal challenge because parcels two acres or less make up about 96 percent of lots in Canton but only about 38 percent of the township’s acreage. Staff said that changeable acreage thresholds and a numerical cap on annual removals are being considered to make enforcement and legal defense more practicable.

Patrick said the packet on the commissioners’ desks contained an older July draft and that a revised draft incorporating recent changes will be presented at the March 17 meeting. He walked commissioners through maps showing parcel distributions at thresholds of two acres, one acre, a half acre and a quarter acre. He said about two-thirds (approximately 66 percent) of Canton parcels are a quarter acre or less but those represent only about 15 percent of the township’s land area.

To address the legal concern that only a small share of property owners were constrained by the ordinance, the staff proposal would keep an acreage threshold but allow any property to remove a fixed number of trees per year, with differing administrative requirements depending on parcel size. For example, staff described a model in which parcels at or below a chosen threshold could remove a small number of trees annually without prior approval, while larger parcels would be required to provide written notice and receive planning-division approval before removal.

Staff described current administrative practice for hazardous trees as informal: when a tree threatens a structure, planning staff have granted permission by e-mail and recorded the action in township property files. The ordinance draft would retain similar exemptions for hazard removal and add other targeted exemptions (for example, utility work, drain easements and road rights-of-way) that can be done without mitigation if prior approval is obtained.

Commissioners discussed enforcement limits and trade-offs. Several said monitoring individual residential lots would be difficult given more than 32,000 parcels and that administration will rely largely on property owner reports, aerial imagery updated every three to four months and complaint referrals. Staff acknowledged that some removals would go unnoticed unless they exceed a stated per-year threshold or are obvious in aerial photography.

On mitigation, staff said the draft ordinance includes a cap on mitigation costs (staff described it as a percentage cap tied to land value) and retains three principal mitigation options: on-site replanting, off-site replanting, or payment to a tree fund. The draft adds options such as mitigation into homeowners association common areas and mitigation measured by calculated ecosystem services (stormwater, air-quality benefits) rather than only tree-count replacement.

Species- and site-specific issues also were discussed. Staff noted that the draft would exempt some nuisance or pond-affecting species (for example, certain willow trees) from replacement requirements while preserving protection for landmark/protected trees and trees required by previously approved landscape plans.

Direction and next steps: commissioners asked staff to test alternatives and report back. Patrick said staff will plug numerical thresholds into the next draft and return to the March 17 meeting; if the commission approves the revised draft, an April meeting would set a public hearing for May. Commissioners and staff discussed possible starting points: a quarter-acre threshold (affecting roughly 66 percent of parcels), a half-acre threshold (affecting roughly 90 percent of parcels) and a suggested example of allowing four trees per parcel per year on lots above the threshold with the same number allowed on smaller lots but subject to less formal review. Staff specifically said it will “plug that into the next draft” and present a version for further discussion.

Enforcement concerns remained: commissioners emphasized the need for consistent documentation and record-keeping, said that inconsistent application risks renewed litigation, and suggested keeping the permission process informal (e-mail or simple form) rather than imposing onerous permitting for small removals.

Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded routine procedural votes (approval of Jan. 27 minutes, acceptance of the agenda and adjournment); these were procedural motions and not votes on the ordinance itself.

The planning staff will return March 17 with a revised ordinance that inserts the recommended thresholds and numerical caps for further commission review and public-notice scheduling.