Public urges council to preserve tree protections as changes to forest, grading and landscaping codes are considered

Havre de Grace residents urged the mayor and city council on June 2 to preserve protections for mature trees and to clarify the city’s land development review process during public hearings on three related ordinances: Ordinance 11-91 (forest conservation), Ordinance 11-92 (grading and filling), and Ordinance 11-93 (landscaping).

Chip Place, a resident of Cigar Loop who spoke at the hearing, told the council the city’s regulatory process creates an “inherent conflict” when subdivision or site-plan approvals are treated separately from forest conservation approvals. “Incorporate forest conservation and landscaping approvals in the underlying land use application, not as separate administrative approvals,” Place said, quoting the recently adopted comprehensive plan’s recommendation that the wider land-use decision-maker should also decide the forest-conservation component.

Kirk Smith, identifying himself as a District 6 resident and frequent commenter on tree issues, asked the council to add a planning commission representative to the Municipal Tree Commission and to revisit language he described as “automatic approval” in the grading ordinance. Smith said the ordinance’s current phrasing—lines 95 through 100—could allow grading or filling to proceed without adequate city review if internal time limits are exceeded.

Carol Zimmerman told the council the recently adopted 2024 comprehensive plan stresses that “the city’s forest conservation and landscape ordinances must be strictly enforced to preserve the tree canopy,” and urged the council to retain a paragraph in Chapter 102 that provides a presumption protecting trees of 6 inches caliper and larger. Several speakers said removing that presumption would weaken protections for significant, mature specimen trees and conflict with the comprehensive plan.

City staff responded in part that the proposed grading-and-filling changes extend review time from 30 to 90 days because current staffing made 30 days impractical. A staff member said the automatic-approval language was intended as a “forcing function” to hold staff to a timetable and to create consistent review expectations rather than to remove oversight.

Why it matters: The ordinances affect how the city balances property owners’ development rights with preservation of tree canopy, site stability and stormwater management. Residents pressed the council to avoid regulatory changes that would reduce protections for mature or culturally significant trees and to ensure tree-management decisions are coordinated with planning review.

Council action and next steps: The hearing record includes detailed public comments; the transcript does not record final votes on Ordinances 11-91, 11-92 or 11-93 during the June 2 session. The public hearing was closed on each ordinance after testimony.

Ending: Speakers asked the council to align code updates with the comprehensive plan, add tree-commission participation in planning deliberations, and remove or clarify language that could permit automatic approvals if staff reviews overrun. The council heard the comments and closed the hearings; no adoption was recorded in the June 2 session.