Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shade Tree Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Marys council adopts ordinance making property owners responsible for unauthorized shade-tree work
Summary
City Council approved Ordinance No. 342, adding monetary liability for repair, removal or replacement of shade trees altered without city approval; a resident questioned the city's authority and the solicitor said a written legal opinion supports the change.
St. Marys City Council on Monday adopted Ordinance No. 342, which amends the city code (Chapter 1, Part 5, Section 507) to provide for monetary liability when shade trees are removed, damaged or altered without prior city and commission approval.
The change came after staff presentation of the ordinance and a public comment from resident Joseph James, who asked whether the city had legal authority to regulate shade trees on or near rights-of-way. "I want to know at this point so you're telling me that you have a legal opinion that the city has the right to tell property owners what to do in that way," James said during public comment.
The city solicitor, who said he drafted the ordinance, told the council the office has provided a written legal opinion supporting the action and that similar provisions have been adopted by other Pennsylvania municipalities. "I drafted the ordinance so yes," the solicitor said when asked whether a legal opinion exists.
Council member Shane moved to adopt the ordinance and Steve seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote. The ordinance text adds monetary liability for repairs, removal and replacement of shade trees taken down or otherwise damaged without city and commission approval, and references the city's shade-tree commission procedures.
Council and residents discussed historic concerns about rights-of-way and prior litigation raised by speakers who recalled disputes decades ago; the council advised residents with specific property disputes to raise the matter directly with the shade-tree commission and attend that commission's meetings for detailed review.
The ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the council did not specify fines or exact enforcement mechanics at the public meeting beyond the code amendment. The solicitor indicated a written opinion exists and that the ordinance language mirrors provisions other municipalities use.
The council took no further action on related administrative clarifications at the meeting; residents with ongoing property disputes said they will pursue additional meetings and documentation.
