46
Hackensack Discussion / tree ordinance for Hackensack
« on: May 13, 2009, 08:25:04 PM »
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
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