Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northampton commissioners debate lowering thresholds in draft Significant Tree Ordinance; discussion tabled for January
Summary
Commissioners discussed a draft Significant Tree Ordinance that would lower the diameter‑at‑breast‑height (DBH) threshold and move to 1:1 replacement instead of the existing half‑diameter rule. Commissioners asked for developer cost estimates and agreed to table the item until Carolyn can answer specific policy and implementation questions in January.
Commissioners at the Northampton Urban Forestry Commission on Dec. 18 discussed changes proposed in a draft Significant Tree Ordinance (SDO) intended to protect younger and midsize trees by lowering the DBH threshold for what counts as a 'significant' tree and by shifting replacement from the current half‑diameter formula to a 1:1 replacement requirement.
The chair summarized the current rule and the draft changes, saying the existing policy calculates replacement as half the diameter with a $100 per caliper‑inch mitigation fee. Under the current example, "the replacement cost ... for that tree are a thousand dollars," the chair said when describing a 20‑inch tree. Under the draft, commissioners were told, smaller trees would be captured at lower DBH thresholds and applicants could either replace in kind or make a payment (the chair noted a $1,500 example for a 15‑inch tree under the draft).
Commissioners pressed for concrete cost estimates that a developer would actually face. "I think another important figure to have ... would be what is the cost or the range of costs that a developer would be required to pay," one commissioner said, asking staff to show project‑specific numbers so applicants and reviewers could anticipate true financial impacts. The chair agreed this would be "a very valuable piece of information" and noted mitigation costs will vary by project depending on which trees are set to be removed and site plans submitted with applications.
Several members voiced caution about imposing requirements that could be perceived as onerous to developers. One commissioner urged balance, noting that while smaller DBH thresholds would better protect the future urban forest, payment options mean many applicants are likely to satisfy mitigation by contributing to the fund rather than planting heavy‑caliper trees on site.
The commission also discussed how recent state zoning changes could reduce the STO's reach by removing site plan review for some two‑family projects, a change that could effectively exempt certain work from the ordinance. Commissioners agreed to postpone further votes or final language until Carolyn (planning staff) could return and answer questions about legal limits, implementation details and how the draft would interact with state zoning law. The item was tabled to the Jan. 15 meeting to allow Carolyn to respond to those technical questions.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff to produce illustrative cost examples scaled to typical project tree removals and to provide Carolyn’s guidance at the January meeting so the commission can reassess the draft language and potential fiscal impacts.
