After hours of testimony, board holds first reading of parkway‑planting code amendment and asks staff to refine proposal

The Village Board on April 7 held a lengthy first reading of proposed amendments to Chapter 9 of the municipal code that would clarify landscaping and maintenance rules for parkways (the public strip between sidewalk and road).

Assistant Village Manager Alex Bartolucci said the amendments were prompted by a rise in tall‑grass and parkway complaints and staff’s desire to balance public works access to buried utilities, sight‑line safety and stormwater needs with residents’ interest in pollinator‑friendly plantings. Staff proposed a default requirement that parkways be turfgrass with limited exceptions: up to a two‑foot planting area around parkway trees and mailboxes, non‑grade‑altering edging materials, and grandfathering for existing nonconforming plantings until property sale. Bartolucci said the changes reflect both the International Property Maintenance Code (noxious weed height at eight inches) and an enforceability priority.

Trustees and residents responded with a wide range of concerns. Trustees emphasized sight‑line and emergency access, simple enforceability, and the village’s ownership and responsibility for parkways; several said the proposal as written was easy to enforce and appropriate. Other trustees and many residents, including trained ecologists and sustainability advocates, argued the turf‑only approach conflicts with Mount Prospect’s stated sustainability goals, limits stormwater infiltration, reduces biodiversity and penalizes homeowners who responsibly maintain intentional native plantings. Speakers proposed alternatives: modest square‑foot planting allowances, a short list of vetted low‑height ground covers, a lightweight registration (or permit) or handbook that would let residents register intentional plantings and commit to maintenance, and buffer zones to preserve sight lines and utility access.

Public comment included technical arguments about native species’ deep root systems, stormwater benefits, biodiversity gain, and local examples where native plantings reduced flooding. Speakers asked the board to consider other municipal models (permitting or registration programs) and to build an educational program and plant‑list guidance for residents.

Trustees debated enforcement costs and the merits of grandfathering existing plantings until sale versus immediate strictures. The board did not take a final vote; staff said it would synthesize input and return with revisions for a future reading.