Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington council reviews tree-permit process after removal of heritage trees at 182 Sussex Road
Summary
Council members raised concerns that three heritage trees at 182 Sussex Road were removed and debated whether the township should require an independent arborist sign-off; the administrator says a licensed New Jersey tree expert provided documentation and the zoning officer issued a permit.
At the Aug. 11 Township of Washington council meeting, council members pressed administration for details after three trees at 182 Sussex Road were removed and later identified as "heritage trees" under township code chapter 4-65.
Township Administrator Mark DeCarlo told the council he reviewed the homeownerfile, spoke with the zoning officer and the tree company, examined Google Earth aerial images and on-site photos, and received a supporting letter from All Seasons Tree Service, which he said is registered with the New Jersey Board of Tree Experts. "I determined that the trees were taken down appropriately with a valid permit issued by the zoning officer and in accordance with the township code chapter 4-65," DeCarlo said.
Councilman Tom Sears and Council President DeSenna said they were concerned the removals appeared to lack appropriate independent certification. Sears asked whether an "arborist" had signed off on the work and whether the arborist was independent of the tree contractor. "So is that something that who makes that determination? I mean, in terms of because don't we need an arborist to provide the sign off...on the dying trees and ability to remove it," Sears said.
Several council members and the administrator discussed the difference between a "New Jersey licensed tree expert" and a separately certified arborist. DeCarlo said the company that submitted the letter is registered with the state board and that he would distribute the application and arborist/tree-expert documentation to council. "I'll follow-up with sending you, all the application documentation," he said.
Members debated whether the ordinance should be revised to require an independent arborist unaffiliated with the tree service to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. One council member urged tightening the ordinance going forward: "Maybe we could put something...we need an independent arborist, independent of the tree company to say that, you know, this tree is no no good." DeCarlo said current procedures appeared to have been followed in this case but supported revisiting the ordinance for clarity.
The council did not take formal action to reverse the permit or restore trees removed; members instructed staff to research the definitions used by the state and to bring recommended ordinance language back to a future meeting.
