tree ordinance for Hackensack

[just watching]

Does Hackensack need a tree ordinance
See article from today's Record

It could cost you if you chop down that tree, court rules
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Last updated: Wednesday May 13, 2009, 4:54 PM
BY MARY FUCHS
NorthJersey.com
STATE HOUSE BUREAU
 1 Comment    Saying it would improve the environment, New Jersey’s Supreme Court yesterday ruled that towns can charge residents and builders to replace trees they chop down.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, said a Jackson Township ordinance was valid not only because it would "ameliorate the evils of tree cutting" but also because it would "serve general environmental goals," wrote Justice Virginia Long.  In 2003, Jackson passed a rule that builders must first apply to the town before removing a tree and pay $200 to $800 for each one they uproot — if they don’t replace them. That money is used to plant trees in parks and other public property in the town.

The decision was praised by environmentalists who say more than 200 towns have such laws on their books — and derided by builders who say such rules are just a way for towns to make money.  Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said the decision could affect the "whole ecosystem" of a town because the ordinance ensures trees are replaced for the municipality’s benefit and not just a site’s development.

"Towns can now protect the environment and do better planning. We think this is a landmark case," said Tittel.

Paul Schneider, a lawyer for the New Jersey Shore Builder’s Association, which challenged the Jackson law, said there’s "no assurance" that towns are using those funds "appropriately."  "It allows them to, as they’ve acknowledged, pay for an Arbor Day party. It would enable them to pay for new landscaping at the municipal building as opposed to addressing the environmental concerns," said Schneider.

Schneider said towns across the state continued to enforce their tree ordinances and charge builders fees while the case was ongoing.  In the decision, the court said Jackson has to be clear about how it uses the fee money. If the "primary purpose is to raise revenue" and not replace the plants, then charging builders and residents would not be "feasible," wrote Long.

William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said the justices "recognized the necessity of allowing municipalities, through their police power" to protect a town’s environment. Jackson Township officials did not return calls for comment yesterday.

Branchburg Mayor Jim Leonard said his township expects to adopt an ordinance that mirrors Jackson’s rules within two weeks. The difference, he said, was that only developers — and not residents — would be charged for tree removal.

"There was almost universal support in commercial and industrial areas and significant opposition to asking a resident to replace a tree," said Leonard. While towns cannot force residents to plant trees on their own property, the court found they should have control over an increase in foliage.

"Because the Township obviously cannot mandate that trees be replanted on other private property, its attempt to mitigate the effects of tree loss on private property by promoting replanting, wherever it can, is rational," said the court’s decision.

Mary Fuchs is a reporter for The Star-Ledger. E-mail: mfuchs@starledger.com

[Hack72]

I consider myself an environmentalist, and I don't support this kind of law.  Perhaps if it were modified to be healthy trees need to be replaced, or if you take down multiple trees they should be replaced, but I fear this law would encourage people, already burdened with the cost of tree removal, to leave unhealthy, dangerous trees standing longer than they should.

Many of the city's trees were planted as the city developed over the past 100+ years, and they are old.  If they were in a forest, they'd fall of natural causes, but obviously we can't allow that. 

It is great the city has a vibrant Shade Tree program, and I don't see this city being leveled like in some "urban sprawl" areas, but I think a law like this wouldn't be needed or helpful in Hackensack.

[Editor]

Shade Tree Advisory Committee page: http://www.hackensack.org/content/1569/default.aspx

CHAPTER 42 SHADE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

[HISTORY: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hackensack 4-18-1988 by Ord. No. 8-88. Amendments noted where applicable.]

§ 42-1 Establishment; members; terms.

There is hereby established a Shade Tree Advisory Committee to consist of five members to be appointed by the City Council. The members shall serve for terms of three years, except that, as to the first appointed members, two shall serve for a term of three years, two for a term of two years and one for a term of one year. Thereafter, all appointments to the Committee shall be for terms of three years, and the term of each such appointment shall commence immediately upon the termination of the term which is being filled. In the event of a vacancy during a term, the successor member shall be appointed for the unexpired portion of that term.

§ 42-2 Purpose.

The purpose of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee shall be to:

A. Establish programs for the protection and preservation, removal or replacement of existing shade trees situated in the public rights-of-way and upon city-owned properties.

B. Establish plans and programs for the planting of new trees within and upon city-controlled properties.

C.  Advise and aid private property owners in the care, maintenance and preservation of their trees in those instances where such assistance is requested by the property owner.

§ 42-3 Procedures and operation.

[Amended 2-6-2007 by Ord. No. 5-2007]

The Mayor and City Council are authorized to name the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee shall have the authority to make its own rules and regulations and keep a record of its proceedings.

§ 42-4 Powers and duties.

[Amended 2-6-2007 by Ord. No. 5-2007]

The functions and responsibilities of the Shade Tree Committee shall be implemented through the Mayor and City Council and shall consist of the following:

A. To review all requests for the removal of any diseased, decayed or otherwise damaged tree situated on public property or within a public right-of-way, which presents a public hazard or creates a blight and, within 30 days of such request, to report its recommendations to the Mayor and City Council concerning the action to be taken in connection with such request.

B. To review subdivision plans and make recommendations to the Planning Board and/or the Zoning Board of Adjustment with respect to tree selection, planting and location.

C.  To disseminate information to property owners concerning tree section (particularly as to disease- and insect-prone trees), planting, composting, pruning and such other information as the Committee may deem advisable for the protection and preservation of shade trees within the city.

D. To review requests of public utility companies for the pruning or removal of trees within a utility right-of-way and to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval or disapproval of the request made or of the action to be taken.

E.  To study and advise the City Council as to the necessity of shade tree replacement on public property and as to the need for programs, ordinances or other forms of planning and control for the protection and preservation of shade trees within the city.

F. To carry out such studies and perform such duties for shade tree care and preservation as the Council may from time to time request of the Committee.

[just watching]

I know from past discussions with members of the Shade Tree Commission that getting funding for new trees is very difficult, and that they are looking for more money to plant more trees.  This could be a source of free money for shade trees for Hackensack.

If this is set up, I think that the ordinance should mandate that 100% of the money collected should go directly to the Shade Tree Commission's fund, and not put into the city's general fund, or be used to pay the DPW to cut grass in Foschini Park.

Hack72 has a valid concern regarding old diseased trees, and that whole issue should be looked into further. 

The ordinance, as generally described in the newspaper article, should definately be written to apply to developers, and to owners of apartment buildings and commercial properties that have trees on their lot.  It's hard to argue against that.  The trick is how to apply it to homeowners.  Some homeowners will resist it, but these are often the same people who object to zoning codes --- for instance to prevent a single-family house from being subdivided into 2 apartments. Some people are just philosophically against government regulation.

There must be a way to write it so that it does NOT apply to homeowners who need to replace a dying and potentially dangerous tree. This would resolve the concerns of Hack72, who stated a valid concern. Maybe some way to have a tree declared to be hazardous.  Unsure of the mechanism. 

I also have criticisms of a blanket ordinance, and they are different from Hack72's.  These are my criticisms

(1) Provisions should state that it does NOT apply to the removal of invasive and non-native trees, such as Ailanthus, Mulberry, Royal Pawlonia, or Norway Maple.  A whole list of invasive trees could be drawn up.

(2) Provisions should state that it does NOT apply to the removal of any tree, for any reason, within 4 feet of the foundation of a house.  Tree roots can wreak havoc on foundations.

(3) It should also state that removal of trees under six inches in diameter do not apply.  Or removal of somebody's overgrown evergreen landscaping that is blocking the entire house.  Everyone has seen old houses that are completely hidden by overgrown yews or arborvitae.

(4) Provisions should state that it does not apply to the removal of any dead or dying tree, or any tree over 1/3 of the canopy is dead.  Sometimes, there are large trees that have a "v" some way up, and half of the "v" rips off in a storm. The rest of the tree is now inherently unstable, and complete removal of this tree should be allowed without any penalty to the owner.

There has been a problem, especially throughout the Fairmount Section, of new homeowners coming in and just cutting all the trees. Not everybody looks at trees in the same way. 

I would like to see the city council explore the idea further, and find something that works for the City without presenting burdens to low-income or fixed-income homeowners, and addressing my 4 concerns.

[Hack72]

Excellent - thanks for these very thorough provisions.  I totally agree with all of that. 

(1) Provisions should state that it does NOT apply to the removal of invasive and non-native trees, such as Ailanthus, Mulberry, Royal Pawlonia, or Norway Maple.  A whole list of invasive trees could be drawn up.

(2) Provisions should state that it does NOT apply to the removal of any tree, for any reason, within 4 feet of the foundation of a house.  Tree roots can wreak havoc on foundations.

(3) It should also state that removal of trees under six inches in diameter do not apply.  Or removal of somebody's overgrown evergreen landscaping that is blocking the entire house.  Everyone has seen old houses that are completely hidden by overgrown yews or arborvitae.

(4) Provisions should state that it does not apply to the removal of any dead or dying tree, or any tree over 1/3 of the canopy is dead.  Sometimes, there are large trees that have a "v" some way up, and half of the "v" rips off in a storm. The rest of the tree is now inherently unstable, and complete removal of this tree should be allowed without any penalty to the owner.

I second the motion! 
I would also like to see the Shade Tree Commission focus on planting native species.  That was a very important point, well-taken.  I do not think that ornamental pears are native - I believe they're from Asia.  I would like to see more focus on restoring some of the native flora to the area, which doesn't require as much water, and can be more disease resistent.  I guess the problem with some native species is that they are sensitive to air pollution. 

A problem for another day....sigh.

[just watching]

Here's another Record article, dated 5/15/09

TOWNS CAN CHARGE TO REPLACE TREES
Friday, May 15, 2009
Last updated: Friday May 15, 2009, 7:54 AM

BY JAMES M. O'NEILL
NorthJersey.com
STAFF WRITER

 0 Comments    The state Supreme Court this week upheld a town ordinance designed to protect trees, overturning a lower court ruling that environmentalists said would have jeopardized similar tree ordinances in North Jersey and throughout the state.

The case involved an ordinance that Jackson Township in Ocean County had passed in 2003 and which the New Jersey Shore Builders Association had challenged in court.

The rule required that when developers or homeowners cut down trees on their property, the trees had to be replaced, either by planting new trees somewhere on the same property or paying into a Tree Escrow Fund the town would use to plant trees and shrubs on public land within the township.

Similar ordinances, with varying degrees of restriction, exist in many towns throughout North Jersey.

Wayne, for instance, requires developers and homeowners to replace trees they cut down. If there is no room on their own property, they can pay into a tree replenishment fund, which the town uses to plant trees on town property.

"I was extremely happy to see that the Supreme Court upheld the Jackson Township ordinance," Wayne Mayor Christopher P. Vergano said. "The intent of our ordinance is to make sure that we are able to maintain the small amount of visual aesthetics — trees — that we currently have, forever."

The Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter called the Supreme Court decision a victory for trees. "This is a milestone in the ability of towns to protect the environment and do proper planning in their communities," said Jeff Tittel, head of the Sierra Club chapter.

Lower courts had called the Jackson Township law invalid because the town failed to explain how the escrow fund and planting trees on town property helped achieve the law's main goal to reduce soil erosion, dust, reduced property values and other hazards of clear-cutting on private property.

But the state Supreme Court, in a 7-0 decision, concluded that the rule "recognizes that the removal of trees on any property affects the health, safety and well-being of the township's inhabitants and that trees are an important ecological resource."

The Sierra Club estimates that about 200 towns in New Jersey have such tree ordinances, including Oakland, Ringwood and Mahwah.  "The Supreme Court decision was good news for us, because Mahwah has the same mechanism for paying into a tree bank fund," said Brian Campion, Mahwah's business administrator. "The lower-court ruling would have invalidated Mahwah's ordinance."

Campion said developers of office parks and residential developments frequently pay into the fund because they can't fit enough replacement trees on the properties where they removed trees for their projects. Campion said the fund had about $22,000 in it at the end of last year.

Ringwood's tree ordinance, passed more than 30 years ago and revised in 2006, is less restrictive than some. It allows removal of 10 percent of trees on one's property each year, based on a formula that also considers tree size and tree density on the property. Those who go over that limit must replace trees they remove by planting new ones elsewhere on their property. Ringwood does not have a tree fund.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the Jackson ordinance remains in limbo because the Appellate Court had also declared the ordinance void for vagueness, and the Supreme Court did not address that issue. The township will have to amend the ordinance to comply with the lower court's vagueness ruling.

E-mail: oneillj@northjersey.com