This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Council Takes First Step Toward Approving New Tree Ordinance

Revised law moves forward, despite concerns from some residents.

The Belmont City Council on Tuesday night approved the first revision of an ordinance regulating how residents may remove trees on their property.

Council members voted 3-1-1 in favor of taking the first step toward toward approving the ordinance. A final approval could take place at the next meeting Aug. 9.

Councilman David Braunstein dissented and Councilman Warren Lieberman abstained from voting. Both cited a desire to receive more information before voting for approval.

The new ordinance attempts to alter the current city law regulating how residents are allowed to chop down trees on private property. Should the ordinance be imposed, any attempt to remove a tree with a trunk larger than 10-inches in diameter at 4.5 feet tall would require city approval.

As well, under approval, each tree slated to be cut down should be noticed with a permit grated by the city in advance of it being removed.

The current tree ordinance carries a list of protected species which require a permit to remove. Community Development Director Carlos de Melo said the proposed revision is necessary to simplify the city's policy.

de Melo also suggested that the city impose fees to residents who wish to get a permit to remove a tree. He proposed a fee of $50 to $75 per permit, in order to allow the city to recoup some of the cost related to issuing the permit.

The council did not provide direction to city staff in regards to whether to impose such a fee.

The proposed revised ordinance also carries over a replacement policy from its predecessor which requires residents who chop down a tree to replant from one to three new ones on their property.

A city inspector granting the permit would likely determine how many trees need to be planted in order to properly replace the one being cut, said de Melo.

But Lieberman took issue with the ordinance, claiming city staff should more clearly define the policy regarding replacement in the ordinance, rather than leaving it to the judgement of an inspector.

Residents also spoke out against the ordinance, claiming it intruded on the rights of property owners.

Stephen Cann said the city should allow residents more freedom in their ability to landscape.

"The proposed ordinance doesn't sit well with me," said Cann.

Resident Barry Lake, a self-proclaimed "tree hugger," called the ordinance poorly written and feared imposing it would have unintended consequences. He said he feared that bushes or shrubs that have wide trunks wouldn't be allowed to be removed without a permit.

"It is government extending a little too far into our business, and we need to re-think this," said Lake.

Councilwoman Christine Wozniak echoed Lake's concerns in regards to how the ordinance would apply to smaller shrubs and bushes.

But de Melo assured them that the city would not force residents to apply for a permit to remove anything other than a tree.

Two members of the city's Planning Commission spoke against the proposed ordinance to the council during public comment as well.

Commissioner Jackie Horton said she feared the ordinance was too broad and claimed it lacked necessary detail and nuance.

"I don't believe the ordinance before you tonight is the best one for Belmont," she said.

And Robert Mayer spoke at the meeting to also voice his concern about the intrusion on the rights of property owners.

But Mayor Coralin Feierbach dismissed concerns regarding government control of private property, and said those voicing such complaints sounded "slightly Libertarian."

Feierbach, Wozniak and Counciman Dave Warden voted in favor of approving the first reading of the ordinance, and instructed de Melo and staff to clarify points of concern such as ensuring permits would not be required to remove bushes and shrubs.

"It may displease some people, but I think the ordinance is fine," said Feierbach.

Wozniak agreed.

"There are some details we can still refine," she said. "But I, in general, support the ordinance."

Councilman Braunstein attempted to postpone a vote until the ordinance was revised and brought back at a later date, along with more information about similar laws that have been imposed in surrounding cities.

But a majority of the council voted in favor of the ordinance, under the assumption that necesssary revisions would take place before it came back for final approval in August.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?