Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears plan to build community-led group after council rejects tree ordinance
Summary
A presenter briefed commissioners on a proposal to form a community engagement group to rework a rejected tree conservation ordinance and gather public input before seeking a council sponsor; commissioners discussed private-property limits, social-media-driven opposition and next steps for outreach and research.
Julie Noble, chair of the Finance and Marketing Commission, opened the meeting and said the commission had invited a presenter to explain next steps after the Common Council declined to adopt the draft tree conservation ordinance.
Brent, who led the presentation, said the council "did reject the ordinance as it as it was" and "they said that they wanted to start from scratch," and proposed a three-part approach: form a community engagement group with representatives from Kingston organizations and neighborhood stakeholders; gather public feedback over late summer and fall at existing events; and prepare a revised package the council would be willing to sponsor. Brent told the commission he preferred community leadership of any new group rather than it being led by city staff.
Commissioners pressed on whether a future ordinance could regulate private property. Brent noted Kingston’s waterfront overlay currently regulates removal of large trees on private parcels (the code requires replacement trees for 18-inch trunk removals in that overlay) and emphasized that the draft ordinance included other elements such as public-notification rules, staff pruning standards and protections for trees during development. He said much of the opposition that emerged during the council review stemmed from private-property owners and social-media posts that circulated an unsourced figure — a purported $8,000 replacement cost — which his office could not trace to supporting calculations.
Members agreed to continue research and outreach. Commissioners asked staff to assemble the written comments Brent had already summarized (about 40 written comments: roughly 14 in favor, 16 opposed and the remainder neutral or suggesting edits) and to report back at the commission’s September meeting; the group also discussed a possible August check-in to coordinate representatives interested in serving on the engagement group.
The discussion closed with a timetable: outreach and information-gathering over late summer and fall, followed by a commission update and then potential council engagement once a draft had community backing.
