Cary committee discusses private-tree removals after resident complaint; takes no new action

On March 4, 2025, the Village of Cary Committee of the Whole discussed whether to adopt new regulations for the removal of trees on private property after a homeowner in the Trout Valley subdivision removed more than 30 trees and sought guidance from the village and the subdivision homeowners association.

Public Works Director Simmons told the committee the village regulates trees in two ways: through the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and through public‑works permits for trees on public property. The UDO’s landscaping and tree‑preservation requirements apply to new multifamily or nonresidential developments and to large building expansions, but do not generally apply to existing single‑family homes, Simmons said. He said homeowners may currently remove trees on single‑family lots without a village permit. “It’s private property stuff,” Simmons said.

The committee also heard from resident and contractor Jim Thomasello, who opposed expanding regulation of tree removals on private property. Thomasello said permitting would add cost and delay for homeowners and contractors and described scenarios where immediate removal is needed for safety after storm damage. “I don’t think government needs to get involved in tree removal in people’s houses just because someone wants to make their house or their property look better or clean up undergrowth,” Thomasello said.

Simmons presented examples from nearby municipalities: Algonquin requires a permit for trees with more than a 10‑inch diameter and requires replacement and a tree survey if more than four trees are proposed for removal; Lakewood requires permits for trees taller than about 20 feet or larger than about 6 inches in diameter and requires replacement trees; Crystal Lake and McHenry require permits only in certain circumstances tied to parcel size (Crystal Lake: permits not required for single‑family parcels under 3 acres; McHenry: permits required for single‑family parcels over 2 acres).

Simmons said the Trout Valley property is atypical for Cary—about 1.25 acres and densely wooded—relative to most village lots, which are usually about one‑third of an acre. He said the homeowner contacted both the Trout Valley subdivision HOA and the village before removing trees and was told no village permit was required for the work.

Committee members who spoke said they did not want the village to set new regulations for private single‑family properties. The committee chair said, “I don’t think we should regulate private property with trees,” and other members agreed that the village already has tools to address hazardous trees and that expanded regulation could be burdensome for homeowners. Simmons said staff can draft regulations for future consideration if the board desires, but no direction to prepare an ordinance was taken at the meeting.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss pending or imminent litigation under the citation read on the record; the motion was approved without recorded opposition. There were no votes at the meeting to adopt new tree regulations.

The discussion leaves the village’s current practice unchanged: single‑family homeowners in Cary are generally allowed to remove trees on their property without a village permit; public property trees and rights‑of‑way remain subject to public‑works permitting and review. If the board asks staff to draft changes in the future, those drafts would return to the committee for consideration and formal action.