Homer Glen committee debates tree-ordinance restitution rates, caps and enforcement
Loading...
Summary
The Homer Glen Environment Committee reviewed a redraft of a tree ordinance that would set restitution at $150 per caliper inch (or an alternative replacement ratio), discussed whether to cap per‑acre penalties, and weighed enforcement options for unpermitted removals and stump evidence.
Chair led the committee through a redrafted tree-ordinance text and asked members to settle restitution and mitigation figures before recommending the measure to the village board.
"I redrafted the the text amendment, and that's included in everybody's packet," the Chair said, inviting comment on the proposed numbers and enforcement language. The draft includes a restitution approach the committee previously discussed: $150 per caliper inch, or a replacement calculation that would substitute 0.04 inches of new tree for each inch removed.
Committee members said the figures generally align with neighboring municipalities but flagged scenarios in which clear-cutting would generate very large restitution totals. Committee member S2 pointed to example D in the packet—an acre with many trees—where numbers reached $44,700 and suggested the group consider a per-acre cap as an insurance policy. "We might consider a cap," S2 said, offering hypothetical limits such as a $7,500 cap or a per-acre ceiling to avoid extreme outcomes.
Others said a cap could reintroduce complexity and requests for variances. The Chair favored no cap for simplicity but left the item open for further discussion and legal review. "If it's too onerous, then we can adjust that as well," the Chair said, noting the ordinance can be amended after adoption.
Village arborist Jen provided species and valuation context, and staff and members discussed a hybrid approach for rare, very large trees. S8 proposed treating very large "heritage" specimens by applying $150 per inch up to 30 inches, then switching to an ISA/ISB valuation for diameter above that threshold to capture ecological value for outliers. Members agreed this would affect only unusual cases and asked staff to model how often the ISA calculation would apply.
On enforcement, the committee discussed penalties for unpermitted removals and for deliberate stump removal that destroys evidence. The Chair and others favored doubling restitution if the stump is removed without a permit; S8 suggested staff run comparisons against other municipal codes for legal defensibility. Committee members noted practical constraints—no comprehensive tree inventory currently exists, and proving past stump diameter after grinding can be difficult—so staff were asked to research detection methods (e.g., ground disturbance, wood-chip evidence, Google Earth/Street View) and legal options.
The group clarified policy for invasive or "not recommended" species: removing those species will not be encouraged but will not be exempt from unpermitted-removal penalties if done without prior verification. "We're not penalizing the removal of invasive trees, but we're not encouraging it," the Chair said, adding that unpermitted removals present verification challenges.
Next steps: staff will refine the draft, model the heritage-tree/ISA option and possible cap scenarios, research comparative penalty structures, and return with recommendations. The committee aimed to reconvene in early May to finalize an informal recommendation to the village board before formal adoption steps.
