Madison Plan Commission pauses tree protection ordinance to gather more stakeholder input

The City of Madison Plan Commission voted unanimously Aug. 11 to refer proposed amendments to the city’s street tree protection rules (Legistar 89254) to the commission’s Aug. 25 meeting following a lengthy presentation by the city arborist and extended public and commissioner questions.

The amendments would change several Madison General Ordinance sections to strengthen protections for mature street trees, establish a dedicated street tree replacement fund, and require earlier involvement of forestry staff in development projects. The proposal, presented by City Arborist Ian Brown, is intended to increase the city’s canopy resilience and better align tree-protection practice with industry standards.

Brown told commissioners the revisions aim to move Madison toward its 40% community canopy goal by protecting larger trees that provide the majority of canopy benefits. Under the proposal, the “tree protection zone” would scale with trunk diameter (one foot of protection per inch of trunk diameter), replacing the current flat five‑foot buffer; the ordinance would also create a dedicated street tree replacement fund to channel payments for unavoidable removals back into urban forestry projects and planting, rather than into the city’s general fund.

Brown said the city and federal partners found in a recent urban forest inventory that roughly 10% of trees (by stem count) that are 15 inches or greater provide about 53% of the city's leaf area, and that protecting those larger trees is the most effective way to retain canopy benefits such as shade, stormwater interception and air‑quality improvement.

The proposed ordinance would also authorize the city to suspend or revoke certain permits (for example, a right‑of‑way occupancy permit) if tree‑protection rules are violated, Brown said, and would require applicants who plan work near street trees to consult with certified arborists and with Forestry earlier in the project timeline. Brown said the administration intends a Jan. 1, 2026 effective date if the ordinance is adopted, to allow time for outreach and adjustments before the next construction season.

Public comment was split. Bill Connors, representing Smart Growth Greater Madison, said his group did not take a formal position but objected to the outreach process used to draft the ordinance. Connors asked whether the city had engaged general contractors and developers during drafting and warned that adding review requirements could lengthen permitting timelines and construction costs.

Sandra Ward, co‑chair of the Capital Neighborhoods Tree Protection and Planting Committee, spoke in support and said the changes could better protect Madison’s canopy. The staff report listed several additional registrants in support and one in opposition who did not speak; the record of written registrants will be posted with the agenda, Planning Division staff said.

Commissioners pressed staff and Brown on several operational details: how the ordinance would affect sidewalk‑repair and city street projects, how utility pruning interacts with city forestry, whether the Development Assistance Team (DAT) process currently includes forestry, whether tree condition would be a formal factor in driveway or removal decisions, and how on‑site, last‑minute construction changes would be handled.

Brown said sidewalk replacement can harm roots and that forestry recently purchased an air‑spade to inspect roots non‑invasively. He explained that city forestry already participates in DAT but that the ordinance seeks to bring forestry into more conversations earlier. Brown said the ordinance would rely on certified arborists’ reports submitted by applicants, and that Forestry would review and advise on mitigation, potential site improvements (for example, Silva Cells), or replacement requirements. He told commissioners that there is a proposed compensation schedule tied to removed trees and that funds paid into the new replacement fund would be used to improve planting conditions—particularly in constrained downtown sites.

Several commissioners expressed support for the ordinance's intent but asked for clearer language and more stakeholder outreach. Commissioner Solheim and others highlighted the need to explicitly account for tree condition and for clarifying whether the protection zone applies only to the public right‑of‑way or extends onto private property. Brown said the city’s jurisdiction is limited to right‑of‑way trees for the ordinance but that other permit processes can involve forestry for private‑property impacts.

After discussion, Alder Field moved — and Commissioner Solheim seconded — a referral of the ordinance to the Plan Commission’s Aug. 25 meeting to allow additional review and stakeholder input. The motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: staff and Forestry said they expect to use the Aug. 25 hearing to clarify ordinance language, describe how Forestry will be engaged in permitting and DAT, and respond to questions from contractors and neighborhood groups. Brown earlier told the commission the plan is to return the ordinance to Common Council for a vote on Sept. 16 and, if adopted, to implement the rule changes on Jan. 1, 2026.

Why it matters: street trees provide long‑lasting environmental and neighborhood benefits, and the proposed changes would change how development projects interact with mature trees. The referral gives staff time to respond to concerns about permitting logistics, staffing capacity for reviews, compensation mechanisms, and how the ordinance will be enforced or applied in practice.