Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenafly council introduces updated tree ordinance, removes landmark section for rewrite
Summary
Council introduced Ordinance 26-11 to repeal and replace the borough's tree removal and protection code, scheduling a March 24 hearing. Members split over lowering the major‑permit threshold from 20 to 15 trees and over replacement requirements for large trees; the proposed landmark‑tree section was pulled for separate drafting.
The Borough of Tenafly introduced Ordinance 26-11 on March 10, 2026, to repeal and replace Chapter 26 (Tree Removal and Protection), setting a public hearing for March 24. Council members debated multiple changes staff proposed, including lowering the major tree‑removal permit threshold and increasing mitigation requirements for large‑diameter trees.
Wendy Welch, who reviewed planning and ordinance changes for the borough, said the draft implements updated model provisions and noted the proposal would keep certain quota calculations in an appendix. "The exemption would be up to four trees per acre over the course of five years," Welch explained when describing a proposed limited exemption for small trees on small lots. Several council members said they worried that expanding exemptions would undermine mitigation, while others said a small periodic allowance helps homeowners who face insurance or safety-driven removals.
Councilmember Julie (identified in the transcript as the source of draft edits) proposed lowering the major‑permit threshold from 20 to 15 trees so that an engineer would review more removals; some members supported the change while others said it would overly burden residents. "I think if some residents are cutting down 15 significant trees, I don't think that's a too much of a burden to ask," one council member said in favor; another countered that lowering the threshold "would be more restrictive than what's currently on the books." (Speakers are identified from the meeting transcript.)
The draft also included suggested adjustments to the replacement table to require additional mitigation when established trees of 23 inches or greater in diameter are removed; council discussion focused on whether planting multiple small specimens restores lost canopy and whether monetary mitigation accurately compensates for large, mature trees. The tree foreman had recommended stricter mitigation for large removals; staff advised that many tradeoffs exist between ecology, drainage and property‑use needs.
On the landmark‑tree provision, councilors split over leaving a placeholder versus removing the section for later, more workable language. "I would vote to take it out and work on something that works better," one member said; another urged leaving a basic section in place so some protection remains during the rewrite. Ultimately the council agreed to introduce the ordinance with the landmark section removed to be redrafted separately and to include an appendix listing species allowed for replacement plantings.
The council did not adopt the ordinance at first reading. The motion to introduce the ordinance (with the landmark section removed and Appendix A inserted) passed and was set for public hearing and further consideration on March 24, 2026. Next steps include staff circulation of a revised draft incorporating the edits and additional language on enforcement and the replacement tree list.
What happens next: The council will receive a revised draft and a formal public hearing will be held on March 24, 2026, where members may move to amend or adopt the ordinance.
