Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dewey Beach debates lowering minimum replacement‑tree size and adding limited discretion for building officials
Summary
Commissioners discussed Charter & Code recommendations to lower the minimum replacement‑tree diameter from the current large‑root‑ball standard to 3 inches (with options for 3–5" depending on proximity to structures) and to allow limited, documented discretion when lots cannot accommodate full replacements; council asked for clearer arborist criteria and a minimum floor of five replacement trees when many are removed.
Commissioners in Dewey Beach spent significant time on June 20 reviewing Charter & Code recommendations to change the town’s tree‑replacement rules after repeated complaints that the current minimum (expressed in code as 15 inches circumference, roughly 4.75" diameter) requires a root ball so large it often forces use of heavy equipment.
Commissioner Persinger summarized the committee’s preferred change: measure minimum replacement size as diameter (one foot above the ground) and reduce it to 3 inches so homeowners can plant and maintain replacements without specialized equipment. The committee also suggested an approved list of native species and further arborist input on species selection.
Several council members pushed back on a uniform 3" minimum, arguing that a larger replacement produces a meaningful canopy faster and better offsets loss of mature trees. One proposal that found support would require a 5" minimum generally but allow a 3" minimum when a replacement tree would sit within 8 feet of a structure. The council discussed a process to allow the building official, with documented arborist justification, to reduce the required number of replacement trees in constrained situations — but to set a floor so that when more than five trees are removed the minimum replaced could be no fewer than five.
Dave Lyons, chair of the Charter & Code committee, urged caution about giving too‑broad discretion to town officials and recommended a requirement that any discretionary reduction be supported by a licensed arborist’s sealed statement explaining the constraint and the maximum number of native‑species replacements that are practical.
The council did not adopt a final ordinance text at the meeting but agreed on principles to refine the draft: (1) change circumference to diameter and lower the required size; (2) develop clearer criteria and a documented arborist review process when lots cannot accommodate one‑for‑one replacement; and (3) prepare future discussion of a separate minimum‑density requirement for new construction. Staff will bring revised ordinance language and specific arborist guidance back for further consideration.
