COUNCILMAN WANTS TO AXE TREE ORDINANCE
By DUSTIN RACIOPPI
Is Fair Haven Councilman Bob Marchese barking up the wrong tree?
The second-year councilman, shown right, told his counterparts Monday night that he wants to see the borough’s tree ordinance repealed, and intends to take it to a vote in the near future.
The ordinance, designed to protect trees of a certain size from the saw, was at issue last year when the borough code enforcement officer refused to let a home builder cut down a dozen trees and the council overruled the decision.
That set off a series of contentious debates, initiated by a teenager, over property rights and environmental concerns, and it didn’t die down until recently.
So when Marchese resurrected the topic, Mayor Mike Halfacre dispensed a bit of advice.
“I said, ‘buckle up,'” Halfacre told redbankgreen.
Marchese said he isn’t looking to start a fight, though.
The ordinance, in his view, is an example of overreaching local government and an infringement on property owners’ rights.
The law, passed in 2007, says property owners must get permission from code enforcement to cut down trees of a certain diameter. If permission is denied as it was to Spencer Foxworth, who was building two new homes on Poplar Street last year it is open to an appeal before the council. And the council, Marchese said, has been “extremely flexible” in appeals.
“My fear is that the ordinance, how it’s written now, is an affront to property rights,” he said, “and there’s no guarantee the council will be so flexible as it is now.”
So Marchese wants to scrap the ordinance altogether and find another way to preserve both the trees and rights of property owners, he said. Whatever that may entail is for future discussions, he said, although he’s formulated a couple of alternatives that might accomplish that end.
“I want to see it repealed, but I want to replace it with something less restrictive,” Marchese said.
Halfacre said considering the council’s mixed response to Marchese’s proposal Monday night, he’s not sure if a repeal would even pass a vote.
“He seems to think he has the votes to do it,” Halfacre said. “I don’t think he does, based on the reaction last night.”
But Marchese said he wants to at least open a dialogue to find a compromise to an ordinance he says can be a “ridiculous requirement” for a property owner.
He expects to draw a backlash from his proposal, but hopes more than anything that there’ll be substantive discussions to find a solution, he said.
“Absolutely,” he said. “I could’ve made the motion (Monday night). I wanted to first get it out there, broach the topic. I want public input.
“I could make the motion and the motion might not pass and that’s it,” he continued. “It could be very close.”
Mar 02, 2011 @ 12:39:48
I am sorry that developers clear cut some of the heavily wooded properties in town, but I think it is absurd that as a homeowner I have to ask permission to cut down a tree, pay a fee to the town and possibly have to appeal the decision of a code enforcement officer as to whether the tree can be cut down. Hopefully this overly broad ordinance will be rescinded.
Mar 02, 2011 @ 16:24:23
Hurray!The Tree Ordinance needs some fine-tuning. A homeowner should not have to pay a fee, or ask permission to cut down a fixed number or percentage of trees on their property. Anyone getting a builders permit should have to comply with A Tree Ordinance that seeks to a percentage of trees on the property
Mar 02, 2011 @ 16:25:22
seeks to save a percentage of trees
Mar 03, 2011 @ 10:25:35
Saving or cutting down trees is not a question of importance to just the single homeowner who wants to cut them down. It’s an issue of serious importance to the entire community because of the important role trees play in preserving the environment. Trees provide shade, clean the air, reduce summertime heat, help hold the soil down, provide homes for small animals and birds and are a source of beauty and inspiration for everyone who sees them.
Just one example on a practical level: Some years ago one of my neighbors (when I lived in another town) had a large, healthy tree cut down near the front door of her condo. The next summer she discovered to her horror that the temperature on her porch was reaching 112 degrees on many days. Her upstairs neighbor’s air conditioning bill rose significantly, but she couldn’t keep her unit cool. It will take many, many years of growth before any tree she plants as a replacement will restore what they both had before she took that tree down.
I am delighted that the town I live in today requires a letter from a tree expert saying that a tree is badly diseased or a danger before it will allow it to be cut down.
Mar 04, 2011 @ 07:29:16
Tree Protection: Trees provide buffers & screens against noise and air pollution; human and animal life depend upon the capacity of trees to absorb carbon dioxide and supply oxygen in our atmosphere; trees filter out pollutants from the air; trees provide a haven for birds which in turn assist in the control of insects; trees are physiologically, sociologically and aesthetically necessary counterparts to the manmade urban setting; trees tend to conserve and increase property values.
In the 40 plus months that our tree ordinance has been in effect in our town it has protected over 300 trees!!
Fair Havens tree ordinance is modeled after the Town of Jacksons tree ordinance. Their tree ordinance was repealed and went before the Supreme Court which upheld the tree ordinance. Read about it here:
https://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article/12733
While I agree that our tree ordinance needs revisions we should NOT get rid of it. It needs refining especially for the homeowner. I 100% agree that a builder / property owner who wants to clear a lot to build a new home should go before Planning / Zoning with a landscape plan from a licensed landscape architect for approval.
Next time Mr. Marchese is out and about town, I ask him to take a wee peak at the sign as you enter our town. On the sign it states that we are a Tree City. 10 years ago we received a grant from NJ and we became a Tree City because of our dedication to preserving our borough’s trees.!
So Marchese wants to scrap the ordinance altogether and find another way to preserve both the trees and rights of property owners, he said. Whatever that may entail is for future discussions, he said, although hes formulated a couple of alternatives that might accomplish that end.
Wonder what Marcheses alternatives are that he has formulated to preserve both the trees and the rights of property owners?