Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission begins multi-meeting review of tree ordinance, debates specimen and hazard-tree rules
Summary
Commissioners began a detailed review of the borough tree ordinance, discussing how to define and protect 'significant specimen' trees, whether remediation options should be added to hazard-tree rules, replacement requirements and thresholds for large-scale removal; members asked for inventory data and modeled impacts to guide policy choices.
The Shade Tree Commission devoted the meeting's latter half to an initial, multi-session review of the borough's tree ordinance, focusing on (1) whether the borough should adopt a clearer, locally tailored definition of "significant specimen" trees, (2) adding remediation options to hazard-tree provisions, and (3) how to measure replacements and thresholds for large removals.
A staff presenter outlined the current ordinance structure and noted the prior 2024—2025 ordinance referenced a county list of large specimens. The presenter asked whether the Commission wanted to retain numeric county-based criteria or develop a simpler borough-specific approach for residents.
"We should make this digestible and understandable to a layperson," the Chair said, arguing for a user-friendly local definition tied to the borough's inventory. Commissioners agreed that data from the borough tree inventory would be essential to quantify how many trees would qualify under a specimen definition and to avoid inadvertently protecting an unworkably large share of the canopy.
Members also questioned hazard-tree language. The presenter read the existing categories that trigger hazard determinations but noted subsection language lacked a remediation pathway for trees causing property damage. Several commissioners recommended adding remediation or mitigation options so a tree could be saved rather than automatically removed when possible.
Commissioners suggested using available tools to quantify ecological services (stormwater retention, carbon, canopy value) and recommended a sample calculation to show how many trees would meet a "specimen" threshold. The group also raised the house-demolition scenario, noting some ordinances charge developers different replacement fees when demolition rather than routine removal prompts tree loss.
No ordinance changes were adopted; staff were asked to provide data (inventory counts, numbers of hazard trees identified and removed in recent years, and sample valuation calculations) and to return with draft wording in subsequent meetings so the Commission can determine which items to take to the governing body.
Next steps: staff to provide inventory-derived data, charts comparing hazard- and removal-tallies across recent years, and draft ordinance language options for specimen-tree criteria and hazard remediation.
