Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Island advisory board presses for clearer tree law language and an administrative enforcement path
Summary
Advisory-board members reviewed a redlined tree-law draft and urged clearer definitions to protect public safety while preserving ecologically valuable dead trees; the group heard that the town is pursuing an administrative (noncriminal) enforcement procedure for dangerous trees and property nuisances.
The conservation advisory board examined a redlined draft of a local tree law on Feb. 26 and recommended clarifications aimed at preserving ecological benefits while allowing the town an administrative remedy for hazardous trees and abandoned properties.
A Lawmaker (speaker 1) summarized why the town sought an administrative, corrective process rather than criminal enforcement: the criminal-code approach requires personal service and a court process that is impractical when owners are unreachable. "We took that Cheektowaga law. I made it into a Grand Island law," the Lawmaker said, describing consultations with outside municipal attorneys and engineers to adapt an administrative remedy that would allow notices, posting and, if necessary, town-contracted remediation.
Members said the draft redline returned by the town attorney (identified in the discussion as Adrian Godfrey) appeared to insert an older version and language — including references to committee structure — that the board said they did not intend. The Chair and committee members asked for a cleaned-up draft before the next meeting so members could review a current version and provide informed comment.
Board members emphasized distinguishing hazardous trees (defined in the draft as those creating a clear safety risk to people, buildings, utilities or access) from nonhazardous dead or declining trees that can remain for ecological benefit. "Dead or declining trees that do not pose a safety risk for people, buildings, utilities . . . may be left in place for ecological benefit," a speaker summarized from language proposed in the draft.
Members discussed enforcement costs and who fronts remediation expenses. A committee estimate suggested the town could front modest remediation costs (one speaker estimated about $2,500 per year in a scenario where enforcement on a list of properties was required), with county processes potentially reimbursing some costs in certain cases.
Next steps: the board will circulate a cleaned-up redline and associated clarifications and continue to press for language that balances public safety, enforceability and ecological stewardship. Because the advisory board lacked a quorum, no vote was taken at this meeting.
