Council debates tightened tree rules after three heritage trees removed at 182 Sussex Road

Township officials opened a lengthy review of the municipal tree ordinance on Aug. 11 after council members raised concerns about the removal of heritage trees at 182 Sussex Road. Council President DeSana and Councilman Tom Sears said residents had questioned whether the trees had been taken down without proper independent review.

Township Administrator DeCarlo said the homeowner'submitted application identified the trees as heritage and that the zoning officer issued a permit after reviewing an arborist letter from All Seasons Tree Service and aerial photos. "All 3 of the trees that were cut down were in fact heritage trees by definition in the township code," DeCarlo said, and he added that documentation and the arborist letter will be circulated to council.

Council members pressed for changes to avoid a potential conflict of interest when a tree company supplies the arborist report. "Maybe in the future, if we go back to the tree ordinance, maybe we could put something ' we need an independent arborist, independent of the tree company," Council President DeSana said. Administrators and the municipal attorney signaled support for a process that would require an independent second opinion for heritage-tree removals or other sensitive cases.

The proposed ordinance draft contains a definition of "heritage tree" and a replacement-schedule system. Council debated how to calculate tree-replacement obligations and related fees: the draft included a $400 payment tied to tree replacements, and members agreed language should read as a fee "per tree to be replanted" where a removal triggers multiple replacement units based on a size-category schedule. That wording aims to ensure the financial obligation matches the replacement obligation when land area prevents on-site replanting.

Administrators also flagged an exemption for active tree farms and asked staff to confirm how tax-exempt properties report harvests so the ordinance cannot be gamed. Council directed staff to review surrounding towns'approaches, to remove unclear fee provisions (an orphaned "replacement application" fee) and to return with clarifying language. "If it's identified as a heritage tree, perhaps maybe we do ask for a separate letter, a separate arborist that's other than the company that wants to take it down," DeCarlo said.

Next steps: Council asked Attorney Bailey and staff to redline the ordinance to (1) require independent arborist review for heritage-tree removal requests when appropriate, (2) clarify the fee language so payment is assessed per tree to be replanted under the replacement schedule, and (3) clarify exemptions for tree farms. The draft will return for further review and a vote at a future meeting.

Context: The discussion followed a routine administrator report that the township had reviewed permit materials, on-site inspections and a letter from the contractor. Council did not overturn the zoning officer's permit at the meeting but agreed the ordinance language needs tightening before similar cases arise.