Crafton council delays decision on $10,000 shade-tree penalty after public hearing

Crafton Borough Council on Thursday heard an appeal from the owner of 52 Bradford Avenue challenging a $10,000 penalty levied after a public street shade tree was removed without a borough permit, then deferred a final decision to an executive session and the next council meeting.

The appellant, Megan Fontaine, owner and landlord of 52 Bradford Avenue, told the council she did not know the tree in front of her property belonged to the borough, said she had paid $2,300 to have it removed, and asked the council to reduce or eliminate the penalty. "I do regret. I am a rule follower, and this would not be my regular behavior," Fontaine said during her remarks.

The borough's solicitor, Steve Korbel, summarized the hearing process and the council's options under the borough ordinance: approve the appeal and reject the penalty, deny the appeal and let the $10,000 penalty stand, or approve the appeal but select a different penalty amount. Korbel said the penalty was assessed under Chapter 29 of the Crafton Borough Code and that council was hearing an appeal on the amount of the penalty, not on liability.

Nut graf: The hearing brought technical evidence and community perspective: an independent arborist contracted by the borough presented an appraisal that treated the removed tree as a large, 32-inch-caliper equivalent, producing a replacement-and-establishment valuation that the borough used to justify the $10,000 penalty; the property owner offered testimony about longtime tenancy and prior private spending on trees and landscaping. Council did not vote Thursday and scheduled an executive session for further deliberation with a vote expected at the next council meeting.

Most important facts and supporting details

• The appeal and hearing: The hearing was opened by the borough and exhibits were placed in the record, including the borough code chapter, the notice of violation dated Sept. 2, 2025, tree-appraisal documentation and correspondence from the property owner dated Sept. 11, 2025. Several members of the public were sworn and provided comment.

• Penalty basis: Korbel told council that the borough ordinance allows a fine of up to $1,000 for removal of a public tree without a permit and also requires an additional penalty equivalent to the value of the removed tree; the borough's arborist and staff applied an appraisal process that resulted in a $10,000 penalty amount communicated to the property owner.

• Appellant's account: Fontaine said she is an out-of-state landlord who manages 12 apartments, that tenants had complained about the tree and that the tree had buckled the sidewalk. She said she spent about $2,300 to remove the tree and that, over time, she has spent more than $15,000 on tree and landscape work at other properties. Fontaine said she would be willing to plant two trees to replace the one removed and would follow arborist recommendations.

• Arborist appraisal: Megan Cerveni, senior arborist with Tree Pittsburgh (contracted to assist the borough), described her methods to estimate the removed tree's size and replacement cost. Cerveni said she used measurements of neighboring trees, aerial imagery and a standard caliper-to-replacement-cost conversion, estimating the removed tree to be equivalent to a 32-inch-caliper specimen. She explained a sample math pathway: 16 two-inch-caliper replacement trees at approximately $200 each (about $3,200 with delivery and planting) plus establishment and multi-year maintenance costs, leading to a replacement-establishment valuation in the range the borough used and contributing to the $10,000 total.

• Public comment and context: Neighbors and Shade Tree Commission members described the removed tree as large and historically significant to the block; some speakers urged clearer public education on permit requirements and stronger guidance from local contractors. Kristen Schooley, a Shade Tree Commission member, told council that residents should check with borough staff before removing or altering trees. Richard Dixon, a resident who testified, asked whether the ordinance changes had been broadly publicized and highlighted safety concerns tied to buckled sidewalks.

Council action and next steps

Council members discussed the volume of evidence presented and asked for time to review documents and the transcript. By majority voice, council agreed to defer final action: members said they preferred to review exhibits and hold either an executive session the same night or at the next meeting for deliberation. The president announced that the public hearing was adjourned and that an executive session would follow, with the council aiming to reach a decision at the next regular meeting.

Ending: The record shows the council acknowledged the appellant's expressions of contrition and the technical appraisal from the borough arborist, but chose not to resolve the penalty amount immediately. Council members instructed staff to circulate the exhibits and transcript in advance of an executive session and the next meeting, when a formal vote is expected.