Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents Say 17 Trees Were Cut; Council Says Violation Notice Issued
Summary
Emailed public comments read at the Dec. 18 Boonton council meeting allege the removal of 17 healthy trees—including an oak the writer estimated at about 200 years old—without required tree-removal plans; council members said code enforcement has issued a violation notice and will follow up.
Two written public comments read into the record at the Dec. 18 meeting alleged that a private property on a Boonton street had 17 healthy trees removed in apparent violation of the town's tree ordinance.
Melissa D. Salvo of Reservoir Drive told the council (via a written submission read by the clerk) that the town ordinance allows removal of up to 10 healthy trees and that projects reviewed by the planning board must provide a tree removal and replacement plan with a property survey listing number, location, species and trunk diameter. Salvo said the removed trees included "a native Oak with a trunk diameter of 12 feet" and that she estimated the tree to be "at least 200 years old," calling the loss "a clear bypass" of required procedures and urging a documented, transparent process for removals and replacements.
A second emailed comment from Ashley (last name transcribed in the record as 'Ken'/'caran') raised similar concerns, demanded an investigation, and asked the town to release removal and replacement documentation. Ashley also raised other neighborhood concerns about scattered residential garbage on Main Street and follow-up questions about tree removals and planned improvements in Canalside Park.
On the council's behalf a member responded that the code enforcement officer was aware of the tree removals and that a violation notice has been issued. The responding council member said photographs they had seen showed part of the large oak's trunk was hollow, and that while a homeowner has rights to manage safety concerns on their property, the council would follow up; the homeowner was reported to be posting no-trespass signs.
The letters asked for clearer processes including pre-removal photographs, outside expert input for assessments, a public tree inventory recording removals and replacements, and transparency about whether projects conform with the master plan. Council members suggested that code enforcement and the DPW committee are the appropriate bodies to review complaints and next steps.
The council did not take a formal vote or enact new policy during the meeting; members said follow-up would occur through code enforcement and committee review.
