Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees And Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Candidates debate tree protection, lot coverage and demolition fees; no consensus on sweeping code changes
Summary
Forum candidates discussed canopy-tree protection, limits on impermeable surface and whether to add demolition fees. Most favored targeted measures, enforcement, or study rather than immediate, village‑wide mandates that would restrict private property rights.
Tree preservation, lot coverage and possible demolition fees were recurring topics at the Village of Martin's Additions forum.
Mark Schammel and others emphasized planting canopy trees and preserving public green space while respecting private‑property rights. "I would love to see us planting more canopy trees," Schammel said, urging work in common spaces and collaborations with the village tree manager and arborist.
Several candidates described prior tree‑committee work and a Tree City designation; Arthur Alexander noted a past committee proposal to require approvals before removing large trees but said earlier attempts saved only a small number of trees in neighboring communities and were not plainly effective.
On building‑code changes to limit lot coverage, views diverged. Alexander floated a notional cap ("non‑permeable surface shall be no more than 30% of total property") as an idea to consider; Matt Kanter and others warned that sweeping limits could infringe property rights and affect home values. Candidates repeatedly suggested studying trade‑offs and tying any code change to stormwater mitigation rather than adopting a blanket policy.
The short answer question about a demolition/tear‑down fee also drew widespread opposition. Candidates said a fee could burden private owners and would not make the village affordable given current market values; Mark Schammel cited broader affordability constraints and argued enforcement and design controls are better tools.
No ordinance, fee or formal motion was proposed during the forum. Candidates generally favored further study, targeted regulation for new construction and improved enforcement of existing code over immediate, village‑wide mandates.
Any change to village code or adoption of fees would require drafting by staff or legal counsel and a formal council vote.
